D&D General Alternate thought - rule of cool is bad for gaming

[Oofta]

Is “Yo DM, just make something up” a process? That seems to be the semantic distinction being argued.

The DM sets a DC, determines what ability and proficiency applies. It's a process. It's not "just make something up". It's a judgment call of difficulty from "automatic", "easy" all the way up to "nearly impossible".

It's a flexible process for just about any kind of situation where the outcome is uncertain. Because it's such a broad process it can't have hard numbers, that doesn't mean it is not a process of resolution, which is what has been claimed.

D&D and PbtA games like DW are simply comparing apples and oranges and the rule structure of each has little to do with each other.

 

[Maxperson]

They give us general categories. Jump further via athletics may be a bit of an outlier for you, and I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have a suggestion. But in 3E they tried to do that and it was kind of never ending because there are a lot of "outliers".

In any case the point I was making was that we do have a process for resolution. It's not perfect because there will never be one, but it does exist and is clearly spelled out.

There aren't other outliers. Every other skill is inherently pass fail. Acrobatics: success = you flip over the table landing in the chain in a sitting position. Failure = you don't succeed and then more narration. Knowledge: Success = you know something. Failure = you don't know it. Deception: Success = deception. Failure = no deception. Even the other athletics abilities like swimming and climbing are pass fail based on the DC resolution process. Jumping farther, though, is not pass fail. Success =/= "jumps unusually far" as that does not tell you anything you need to know. You need to know how much farther a success is.

The DC resolution process is not enough by itself to be a resolution process for jumping. Because jumping farther is not pass fail, we don't know how much farther a medium DC of 15 gets the PC vs. DCs of 10 or 20. The basic DC resolution process is not sufficient to be a process for jumping farther.

 

[tetrasodium]

There aren't other outliers. Every other skill is inherently pass fail. Acrobatics: success = you flip over the table landing in the chain in a sitting position. Failure = you don't succeed and then more narration. Knowledge: Success = you know something. Failure = you don't know it. Deception: Success = deception. Failure = no deception. Even the other athletics abilities like swimming and climbing are pass fail based on the DC resolution process. Jumping farther, though, is not pass fail. Success =/= "jumps unusually far" as that does not tell you anything you need to know. You need to know how much farther a success is.

The DC resolution process is not enough by itself to be a resolution process for jumping. Because jumping farther is not pass fail, we don't know how much farther a medium DC of 15 gets the PC vs. DCs of 10 or 20. The basic DC resolution process is not sufficient to be a process for jumping farther.

i agree with all of this but want to add on one possibility you left out since IME it tends to result in a lot of fun when players act on it or remember & try to check it in future games
Knowledge: Success = you know something. Failure = you know something you read or maybe saw in a play... [It's totally wrong & may or may nor make things worse]. AFAIK a couple of my players honestly believe top their very core that doppelgangers must be stabbed the heart with a bamboo spear... specifically one that was blessed in a river under a full moon as a result of one PC roiling awful & a second trying to sanity check it with an even worse roll in LMNOP multiple years & campaigns ago.

 

[Oofta]

There aren't other outliers. Every other skill is inherently pass fail. Acrobatics: success = you flip over the table landing in the chain in a sitting position. Failure = you don't succeed and then more narration. Knowledge: Success = you know something. Failure = you don't know it. Deception: Success = deception. Failure = no deception. Even the other athletics abilities like swimming and climbing are pass fail based on the DC resolution process. Jumping farther, though, is not pass fail. Success =/= "jumps unusually far" as that does not tell you anything you need to know. You need to know how much farther a success is.

The DC resolution process is not enough by itself to be a resolution process for jumping. Because jumping farther is not pass fail, we don't know how much farther a medium DC of 15 gets the PC vs. DCs of 10 or 20. The basic DC resolution process is not sufficient to be a process for jumping farther.

I disagree. Not sure what else to say, I don't think this is that much of an outlier because jumping a gap has many, many other factors. Is there a height difference? What is on the other side? What constitutes success? Is it enough for just your arms to grab something handy on the other side or do you die if you don't land on the other side on your feet.

In any case, just because you don't care for the process it does not mean there is not a process. Can it be improved? Have some examples? Sure. I hope they do with the new edition. But that's an improvement, not a replacement.

As far as other skills there are plenty of other issues coming up. Want to do an acrobatics display by jumping up, grabbing the chandelier and doing a backflip? Well ... how stable is the light fixture? How easy will it to be to grab onto? If you're on a sailing ship, acrobatics may be called for to rig the sails but what are the other circumstances. You need to walk along a narrow ledge or even a rope, what's the DC?

You can't answer these kind of questions with simple numbers, it's always going to be a judgement call. PbtA games don't worry about it because they don't bother with simulationist considerations as far as I can tell.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, Advantage/Disadvantage is another factor in the success of 5E.
Which, in a way plays into 'rulings over rules'.

I guess I should put a disclaimer here about this being my opinion.

If you don't want to be called on generalizations without intrinsic evidence, yes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Invisibility is a 2nd-level spell. Not-rare magic items that can help with evasion or sneaking or travel start coming online pretty early (except maybe in 5e if the DM is being stingy); you just have to snap them up. Even in a party of 3rd-4th level types at least one character ought to have a high chance of getting away from 'most any situation.

Invisibility might be, but items that do it (unless you count scrolls) are much higher, and its going to be a hard sell tying up a spell slot with Invisibility early on just as an emergency measure (and far as that goes, early on it probably helps no one but the person carrying it since they can't afford to buy the things that help anyone else after the fact). This isn't even getting into how it was in the bad old days when you had limited control over what spells you knew.

Given that this is a D&D thread, the assumption that we're talking about D&D (or adjacent) would seem to fit, yes.

I acknowledge that, but am just noting the same situation can come up with systems that don't have nearly the magical outs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There's long been this line of thought, subtly repeated time and time again that the rules and implementation of 5E have basically nothing to do with it's success. That it was just a lucky accident of timing. Throw in the idea that if that same set of circumstances had happened during [insert favorite edition here] that version would have been just as successful.

I don't take it as a given that the rules can't be a factor. I do think claiming its the main factor reaches beyond the available data, and claiming its a particular approach to the rules, if one is going to make it without qualifications is, indeed, something I think demands something beyond simply assertation.

I disagree. In the case of rulings over rules, I think it's a very important philosophical shift from the previous WotC developed versions of D&D and, yes, I think it has a lot to do with the enjoyment and flexibility of the game. A game that is fun to play, along with some luck and timing, is what has made 5E as successful as it is. We'll never know exactly what percentage of course, but I think it's a large factor for a lot of people.

And you've expressed it as a personal opinion based on your perspective, which is a different beast.

(Though I will note the last version that did particularly well (3e) was much more rules focused, so if one wants to make this claim beyond intuition one has to account for that).

 

[Maxperson]

I disagree. Not sure what else to say, I don't think this is that much of an outlier because jumping a gap has many, many other factors. Is there a height difference? What is on the other side? What constitutes success? Is it enough for just your arms to grab something handy on the other side or do you die if you don't land on the other side on your feet.

Those are all DM extras. 5e inherently only has jump goes distance. What is on the other side could affect the DC, but it would be in addition to the DC for X extra feet which has no process. Is it enough for arms to grab on? DM extra that has no bearing on jump distance. Height? DM extra that has no bearing on jump distance in 5e as halflings with 10 strength go as far as goliaths with 10 strength.

Clearly success is making it across without falling from the athletics jump check.

As far as other skills there are plenty of other issues coming up. Want to do an acrobatics display by jumping up, grabbing the chandelier and doing a backflip? Well ... how stable is the light fixture? How easy will it to be to grab onto? If you're on a sailing ship, acrobatics may be called for to rig the sails but what are the other circumstances. You need to walk along a narrow ledge or even a rope, what's the DC?

These are also DM extras for the most part. How stable is the light fixture? Has no bearing on the DC of the acrobatics attempt. The PC either succeeds or doesn't, and THEN the fixture either falls or doesn't independent of the acrobatics result. How easy it is to grab onto is built into the DC of the pass fail attempt. The other circumstances involved with rigging on a ship are going to affect the DC number of the pass fail attempt.

The DM deciding DC numbers has no variability in the same manner as jump distance. Sure you are assigning a number that can be variable. Do you assign a 7 or a 9 for example, but once DC is determined walking along the ledge or rope is pass fail. Unlike jumping farther.

You can't answer these kind of questions with simple numbers, it's always going to be a judgement call.

You answer all of them with simple numbers. Most are simple DC numbers. The exception is the stability of the fixture, which will probably involve a roll unless it's so unstable that it auto-falls without a roll of some sort, but it's not going to be a skill check as it's simple weight and force vs. stability of the fixture to determine if it pulls out of the ceiling.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't take it as a given that the rules can't be a factor. I do think claiming its the main factor reaches beyond the available data, and claiming its a particular approach to the rules, if one is going to make it without qualifications is, indeed, something I think demands something beyond simply assertation.

And you've expressed it as a personal opinion based on your perspective, which is a different beast.

(Though I will note the last version that did particularly well (3e) was much more rules focused, so if one wants to make this claim beyond intuition one has to account for that).

I think that with 5e, WotC just was moving away from 4e D&D-style design and was aiming for a simpler version of 3e/PF1, which was its largest competitor at the time, though one still reminiscent of 3e/PF1. Going simpler overall would create a lower barrier for entry for new and returning players. That's all it really had to achieve for success.

 

[Oofta]

I don't take it as a given that the rules can't be a factor. I do think claiming its the main factor reaches beyond the available data, and claiming its a particular approach to the rules, if one is going to make it without qualifications is, indeed, something I think demands something beyond simply assertation.



And you've expressed it as a personal opinion based on your perspective, which is a different beast.

(Though I will note the last version that did particularly well (3e) was much more rules focused, so if one wants to make this claim beyond intuition one has to account for that).

While 3E did fairly well, it followed the boom and bust cycle that most editions of D&D followed. While I enjoyed the edition, there was an expected level of system mastery that turned some people away. Combine that with the (futile in my opinion) attempt to clarify rules for everything. I look at 3E, and I think one of the reasons it didn't grow as much as it could have was because of the codification of rules, that attempt to make each table run much the same with the same rules. It's what they doubled down on with 4E. Call it the anti-rulings-not-rules philosophy. It's why I think ruling over rules is a big part of the success of the rules.

There are a lot of things that have influenced the success of 5E. What percentage each contributed will never be known.