D&D 5E D&D compared to Bespoke Genre TTRPGs

[Neonchameleon]

It can matter quite a bit whether the system assumes giants see in the dark better than humans or not. Its not close to a universal assumption once you move away from direct D&D derivatives.

And how and whether that offsets the fact that the giant is a giant and the humans are significantly smaller and lighter.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Can you provide a quote so I know exactly what you are talking about.

Unless you're talking about the part where a DM can say yes....say no... or roll the dice which I did address in my post.

EDIT: And since this has consistently been the crux of your entire stance in this thread I would assume it will be easy to find a quote stating this rule.

It's under the same heading you quoted -- the role of the dice.

EDIT: and no, not right not, I'm away from my books.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm not grasping how a skill system that is used to resolve at the task level with a fail state and success state... means it has to be a hard binary pass/fail. I think the default of 5e is that but there is an option for success on a failure setting the precedent and underpinnings for a DM to homebrew out a more extensive system if they want it. IMO, having the task itself defined with a success state and fail state does not in turn mean there can't be gradations of both... only that those first two should be defined as part of the task. In fact I would go so far as to think that in order for there to be gradations one has to know what both success and failure mean...

I agree with your comments on pass/fail here.

It's why I like the concepts of 'margin of success' in GURPS and a lot of how FFG Star Wars does checks. Also, similar thinking is what lead to doing skill challenges differently in the pervious edition of D&D.

I would also add that failure can help write a story just as much as success can.

Sometimes, even in official WoTC published stuff, the assumption seems to be that the only way forward is for the PCs to succeed at a given task. But what happens if they don't?

I thought the end of Tyranny of Dragons did a good job of this by explaining that evil dragons conquer the world if the PCs fail, but the next part of the campaign can be the PCs leading a resistance movement. In my head, I picture that either as something like Terminator, but with Skynet and robots being replaced by Tiamat, dragons, and their servants.

Alternatively, it might look like a reverse Stargate (or the various multiverse stories in Marvel or DC,) with the PCs seeking out an alternate prime from which to bring back help.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm a little confused by this statement... Why would the DC's have to account for the level associated capabilities of PC's? Let's walk through your reply... First the book actively discourages DM's from using DC 25 and DC 30 except in extremely unusual and extremely difficult circumstances and instead advocates for a norm of DC's that range between 10 to 20... so I'm confused that you are interpreting it that way. From a reading there is no relative difficulty, it is instead an objective difficulty (though I and others have used it in a relative sense and posted to that effect on these boards but that seems to be the realm of homebrew)... Are CR's relative? I thought they were objective in that CR 10 is CR 10 regardless of the levels of the PC.... or am I misunderstanding your complaint?

Maybe a better way for me to approach this is to ask... what exactly needs to be discussed? Why would low level PC's shun all skill checks and high level character waltz past most of them... there has to be something I'm not grasping in your reply.

That bolded bit is a more than a slight exaggeration

Spoiler: dg238 difficulty class

What is moderate or hard at level 4 is not the same as at level 10 or 15. Even "easy" shifts. No matter how much wotc wanted bounded accuracy to be true it is absolutely anything but. Players tend to choose skills that link up to their primary attribute whenever possible so the skill improves both with proficiency bonus as well as points placed in their primary attribute. We haven't even touched on how expertise & advantage distort the DCs and run into the most glaring problem with the "guidance" where at no point does it say what those very easy easy moderate hard etc are in relation to. Is that hard for a specialist? Is it hard for a dabbler? Is it hard for an untrained person? Is it hard for a commoner? Is it hard for any of those things at level 4? Is it hard for any of those things at level 10? Is it hard for any of those thing with a magic item that grants +N or advantage? so on & so forth.

Those numbers and the guidance is little more than "here are some numbers, figure it out"...They don't mean anything due to not setting enough variables to give them meaning, but we can objectively say that they are umbers so 20 is more than 10 & 5 is less than 7.

 

[Imaro]

It's under the same heading you quoted -- the role of the dice.

EDIT: and no, not right not, I'm away from my books.

I didn't pull my excerpts from that section it's a totally different topic but ok... let's take a look at it.

This section appears to be a set of options for the DM to decide what role the dice will play in his particular game...

The Role of the Dice

Premise: The dice are neutral arbiters... the extent to which you use them is entirely up to you.

Ok so the extent to which you use the dice will be decided by the DM... make sense since you can say yes... say no or require a roll, nothing too amazing here.

Rolling With It
-Some DM rely on dice for almost everything
-When a character attempts a task the DM calls for a check and picks a DC
-Can't rely on the characters succeeding or failing on any one check to move the action in any one direction
-Must be ready to improvise and react to a changing situation
-Drawback: Roleplaying can diminish if players feel dies rolls determine outcome more than their decisions

The very first thing I notice with this option is the word usage of "almost" everything. So even these options are acknowledging they are not absolutes, and so with that said... I still see the principles I discussed earlier being used with this choice. Majority of the time the DM's answer will be roll for it but rarely they will invoke Yes or No.

Ignoring the Dice
-Use dice as rarely as possible
-Example: Some DM's only roll for combat
-DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on the players making their case
-Example: describing searching for a secret door in the correct spot and twisting the correct sconce to find the trigger
-Rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation described for an answer
-Downside: No DM is completely neutral

Again I notice the conditional wording... "as rarely as possible". But even more telling is the example of the secret door they give... what this style seems to be suggesting to me is that the decision points in the game will almost always be framed in a yes/no choice for the players actions from the DM but there will be smaller fringe cases where the DM will still use the dice. Again not seeing how the guidelines don't apply here as it's not actually supporting no dice rolls whatsoever and implies there have to be clear and definite yes/no answers for what the DM does rule on without dice rolls.

The Middle Path
-Using a combination of the two as the best approach
-Strikes a balance between players relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game world
-At any time you can decide a players actions are automatically successful
-You can grant the player advantage on any ability check reducing influence of a bad die roll
-You can grant disadvantage to transform the easiest task into a an impossibility

This uses a mixture of both so the guidelines apply.

Honestly I feel like you are really overstating this DM can do whatever they want thing. They are optional approaches to minimize the usage of one aspect or another...but nowhere in the section on "Ignoring the Dice" does it advocate for a DM not to roll at all and nowhere in the section on "Rolling With It" does it advocate for a DM only ever rolling dice. The wording, examples, etc are very specific in avoiding an absolute.

 

[Imaro]

That bolded bit is a more than a slight exaggeration

Spoiler: dg238 difficulty class

View attachment 136933

What is moderate or hard at level 4 is not the same as at level 10 or 15. Even "easy" shifts. No matter how much wotc wanted bounded accuracy to be true it is absolutely anything but. Players tend to choose skills that link up to their primary attribute whenever possible so the skill improves both with proficiency bonus as well as points placed in their primary attribute. We haven't even touched on how expertise & advantage distort the DCs and run into the most glaring problem with the "guidance" where at no point does it say what those very easy easy moderate hard etc are in relation to. Is that hard for a specialist? Is it hard for a dabbler? Is it hard for an untrained person? Is it hard for a commoner? Is it hard for any of those things at level 4? Is it hard for any of those things at level 10? Is it hard for any of those thing with a magic item that grants +N or advantage? so on & so forth.

Those numbers and the guidance is little more than "here are some numbers, figure it out"...They don't mean anything due to not setting enough variables to give them meaning, but we can objectively say that they are umbers so 20 is more than 10 & 5 is less than 7.

What is this addressing... there is a warning of caution for using DC's higher than 20 right there under the chart...+1=5% what more do you need to decide what you want the success rate to be... I explicitly called out how simple this is because they state that an ability 10 character with no bonuses has a 50% chance to succeed vs DC 10. If I want the same character to have a roughly 75% chance instead I use DC 5... 25%
raise it to DC15

EDIT: You seem to be arguing for a relative DC (believe me I know because I've used it in that manner as a hack) but that's not what this is. If a Tree is a DC 10 to climb... it's a DC 10 to climb regardless of level. Or another way to look at it is that they define "easy" as a 50% chance for Joe average to successfully do it.

 

[tetrasodium]

What is this addressing... there is a warning of caution for using DC's higher than 20 right there under the chart...+1=5% what more do you need to decide what you want the success rate to be... I explicitly called out how simple this is because they state that an ability 10 character with no bonuses has a 50% chance to succeed vs DC 10. If I want the same character to have a roughly 75% chance instead I use DC 5... 25%
raise it to DC15

EDIT: You seem to be arguing for a relative DC (believe me I know because I've used it in that manner as a hack) but that's not what this is. If a Tree is a DC 10 to climb... it's a DC 10 to climb regardless of level. Or another way to look at it is that they define "easy" as a 50% chance for Joe average to successfully do it.

problem with that dc10 is that they also got rid of bonus types & GM's best friend from past editions so a dc10 tree is not always dc10.

• Clear sunny day, sure dc10
• moonless nigh in the dark? Not dc10
  • Without darkvision? Not dc10 or that last one
    • While it's 30 below & much of the rain is in the form of golfball sized hail? Not dc10 or that last one
      • While a wolf is hanging from your legging shaking violeently in attempt to disloge you?Not dc10 or that last one
        • While in plate armor & carrying three backpacks? Not dc10 or that last one
          • While the tree is in a acid fog causing you considerable pain? Not dc10 or that last one
            • with a pair of racial claws on your fingers you are using to give yourself grip? Not dc10 or that last one
              • While the tree is on fire?......

so on & so forth. Also the DC's aren't per the average joe, that's the gm deciding one of the unfilled variables.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm a little confused by this statement... Why would the DC's have to account for the level associated capabilities of PC's? Let's walk through your reply... First the book actively discourages DM's from using DC 25 and DC 30 except in extremely unusual and extremely difficult circumstances and instead advocates for a norm of DC's that range between 10 to 20... so I'm confused that you are interpreting it that way. From a reading there is no relative difficulty, it is instead an objective difficulty (though I and others have used it in a relative sense and posted to that effect on these boards but that seems to be the realm of homebrew)... Are CR's relative? I thought they were objective in that CR 10 is CR 10 regardless of the levels of the PC.... or am I misunderstanding your complaint?

Well, wait a minute, DCs themselves, and CR/Monster level are of course not 'relative' in the sense that they slot into the mechanics in a specific way that doesn't vary. They are RELATIVE INDICATORS however. A 5th level monster is on par to fight a level 5 PC in 4e parlance, or you use CR numbers in 5e (why not level numbers, this is really annoying, but whatever, there's a table someplace that translates between the two).

So, the problem is with the labels on the DCs. A DC of 20 is likely to be pretty hard FOR A LEVEL ONE PC. For a level 20 PC, to use an extreme, it is going to be MUCH easier in large number of cases (and since the guy with the best bonus on your team will take on that DC, for practical purposes the DC is trivial at level 20). So the absolute labeling of that DC as 'hard' is at best misleading. It isn't hard for a high level party! Nor is DC 30 'impossible', nor perhaps even that close to impossible. By pretending this isn't true, and trying to validate that by leaving a few, never to be tested, bonuses at a low value 5e is simply presenting the whole thing badly.

Maybe a better way for me to approach this is to ask... what exactly needs to be discussed? Why would low level PC's shun all skill checks and high level character waltz past most of them... there has to be something I'm not grasping in your reply.

If the world is described literally by assigning the DCs in this table, indiscriminately, then low level PCs are always facing the possibility of these very high DCs. The rules don't ask for the GM to explain the DC before a check is made. Even if it did, that just means you may well run into things your GM is effectively saying you shouldn't try. Likewise it is likely that for high level PCs most things are supposed to be trivially easy (anything below DC20 I imagine). It isn't well-thought-out. It is particularly problematic if you want to actually do anything more sophisticated with ability checks and task resolution than "The GM simply uses them like salt to add flavor" which is mechanically where they're at.

I get that some people will figure out how to ACTUALLY use DCs well themselves, but sheesh.

 

[loverdrive]

Yes but if I stated to my players the DC is X, a success will grant you Y and a failure will cause Z... then I figure a social contract now exists for me to stick to my word... otherwise it's not a system issue it's a bad DM'ing issue... as I could just as easily disregard any social contract for any other game as well since nothing in any game can stop me from lying and being disingenuous if that's what I choose to do.

If you stated the DC, the effect of a success and the consequences of a failure, sure, there is a social contrac — that sounds like a solid resolution system.

But the important word here is "if". From what I've seen, naming DC before the roll is rare. Naming consequences and effect? Almost hever happens.

And it's still system issue. The rules don't require you to clearly state any of that.

Sure, no rule can police itself, but rule can make sure that the other can detect if it was broken. When I roll 6 in Blades, I know that's a success with limited/standard/great effect (depending on what was negotiated before I even touched the dice) and can easily say, whether the outcome falls into the relevant category. If I roll 1, or 2, or 3, I reliably know that I should be prepared for trouble (how bad these troubles are is, again, determined by position even before I touched the dice).

You may frame it as something that only happens in bad faith by some evil killer GM, but in my experience, it's the exact opposite. They tend to be too merciful, and pull their punches — something I'm guilty of too.

In Blades, where I have a way to tell if the GM is doing something wrong, my response to consequences is often "this doesn't sound that Desperate to me, give me something harder" than "wait, this is too much".

 

[Imaro]

problem with that dc10 is that they also got rid of bonus types & GM's best friend from past editions so a dc10 tree is not always dc10.

• Clear sunny day, sure dc10
• moonless nigh in the dark? Not dc10
  • Without darkvision? Not dc10 or that last one
    • While it's 30 below & much of the rain is in the form of golfball sized hail? Not dc10 or that last one
      • While a wolf is hanging from your legging shaking violeently in attempt to disloge you?Not dc10 or that last one
        • While in plate armor & carrying three backpacks? Not dc10 or that last one
          • While the tree is in a acid fog causing you considerable pain? Not dc10 or that last one
            • with a pair of racial claws on your fingers you are using to give yourself grip? Not dc10 or that last one
              • While the tree is on fire?......

so on & so forth. Also the DC's aren't per the average joe, that's the gm deciding one of the unfilled variables.

The relation of an easy DC to a character with a 10 attribute being tested and no bonus is stated right there on the page. Not sure what else to say... Oh and to handle the situations above... well look over the guidelines for ability checks... they aren't inherent to the actual tree which is a DC 10 to climb or an easy tree to climb.