D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution
- Thread starter clearstream
- Start date
Hussar
Legend
If we're only going to use 3 DC's - 10-20, then why bother having a system at all? Or, to put it another way, not not simply have a chance of success based on the character? After all, the DC's are almost always going to fall within a specific range anyway, so, why not simply put it in the player's hands?
But, @Oofta, again, you are not actually talking about simulation. In a simulation system, it has to tell you something about what happened. Why did the roll succeed or fail? What happened? Since the 5e system is not based in anything remotely resembling simulation, then any narration is equally applicable.
Player: I would like to negotiate with the merchant for a discount.
Dm: Ok, fair enough. Gimme a Persuasion check.
Player: 23. I fart on him.
DM: Great, you get a 20 per cent discount.
Is a perfectly reasonable result from the 5e skill system because success or failure is not in any way tied to the narrative or the game world.
But, @Oofta, again, you are not actually talking about simulation. In a simulation system, it has to tell you something about what happened. Why did the roll succeed or fail? What happened? Since the 5e system is not based in anything remotely resembling simulation, then any narration is equally applicable.
Player: I would like to negotiate with the merchant for a discount.
Dm: Ok, fair enough. Gimme a Persuasion check.
Player: 23. I fart on him.
DM: Great, you get a 20 per cent discount.
Is a perfectly reasonable result from the 5e skill system because success or failure is not in any way tied to the narrative or the game world.
Hussar
Legend
I prefer rules that give any sort of guidance whatsoever on how to determine the DC's. And, I would like a system that actually has any sort of indication of what a success or failure actually means in the game fiction. I actually WANT a more simulationist system. I want a system that actually guides the fiction rather than simply making horsey noises when my knight takes a bishop.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Yet another example of a theory that pretty much proves you couldn’t possibly having any fun. And yet somehow millions of people are.
Just to note, in the real world I find this haggling technique to be of mixed effectiveness.
I suspect you're using game theory jargon and I am not. If I knew how to pick a lock and tried to pick it, I might be able to pick it quickly, it might take me a while (say a half hour or so based on my limited knowledge) or it may just be beyond my ability. When I say simulation all I mean is that we use the dice to simulate an uncertain activity and the results resemble what we would see in the real world. In the lock picking case, the result is that we pick the lock or we don't. Why did I fail? Who cares? I'm not a locksmith, I can't tell you.
If someone narrates "I fart on him" for their persuasion check then the check automatically fails in my game. Fortunately I don't play with 8 year olds so it's not an issue. So please lay off the hyperbole. On the other hand if the group doesn't care and they're just playing the games for laughs then who am I to say they're doing it wrong?
They do give guidelines. It's just not guidelines that you personally prefer, and honestly I'm still not sure exactly what you want. You can have a system where (in D&D terms) all the DCs are fixed, I don't think that's any better. How the heck are they supposed to be more specific considering the nearly infinite number of situations that could call for a check?
Shh! No appeals to popularity by mentioning that it apparently works for so many people!
Hussar
Legend
Again in the example I gave, the system provides zero guidance. None. Nothing for setting the dc, nothing for what kind of action it is. The only thing the system provides is the character’s bonus to a d20 roll.
And I’m using the commonly understood meaning of plain English simulation. A simulation that provides no information is not a simulation. It’s not jargon. That’s what simulation actually means.
You don’t appear to want simulation at all. You just want something that says success/failure. That’s not simulating anything. It’s just a slightly more complicated coin flip and then adding some sort of justification after the fact. You’re just making horsey noises while moving your knight.
That’s not simulation.
Bill Zebub
“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
The unwashed masses wouldn’t recognize Fun if it killed them and took their stuff. Right?Shh! No appeals to popularity by mentioning that it apparently works for so many people!
Similar Threads
