D&D General Why the Great Thief Debate Will Always Be With Us

[M_Natas]

My design philosophy would be, that everything that a normal human (outside of combat) could do is in the "Arnesonian Space" or at least in a very rules lite approach.
So, everything like talking, climbing, mimicking voices, hiding in the shadows, stealing ...
5e allows for that in the sense, that with an ability check I can adjudicate like everything a human could possibly try.

Classes, race/species, backgrounds and feats in general just make your chances of succeeding better in the realm of human possible actions. Proficiency or granting advantage for stealth in certain situations doesn't negate the option for any character to try to hide, for example.

Of course there are some feats and options that break that rule in 5e, but in general, 5e works like that.

The supernatural realm of 5e in contrast is fully in the "Gygaxian Space". Doing Magic, showing unnatural fighting or hiding or other abilities, us governed by special rules, which is fine by me.

So, an RPG that follows those principles of design would be perfect for me.

 

[Minigiant]

admit, I think too much rolling by players in social situations takes something away from the game. At some point, even if you are smart and charismatic, you have the right to do the wrong thing as a PC. I might warn a PC if he has a high diplomacy that calling the King fat is not going to go over well, the player can still do it.

I I believe the key part is whether the event or part of the game matters.

The more that part of the game matters and There are variable amounts of competency, the more that part of the game must be gamified.

A lot of early D&D things like social mechanics really didn't matter It wasn't the core part of the game it's not a major pillar.

The second either social interaction or thieving or crafting or wargaming or whatever becomes a major part of the game and has degrees of strength, It needs rules.

 

[M_Natas]

I I believe the key part is whether the event or part of the game matters.

The more that part of the game matters and There are variable amounts of competency, the more that part of the game must be gamified.

A lot of early D&D things like social mechanics really didn't matter It wasn't the core part of the game it's not a major pillar.

The second either social interaction or thieving or crafting or wargaming or whatever becomes a major part of the game and has degrees of strength, It needs rules.

5e has that to a degree. The more important something is, the more you want skill proficiency, your degrees of strength to matter, the more skill checks you need to implement. Because the more skill checks you make, the more statistically relevant become the boni to your skill.
So for a simple, actually more or less unimportant price negotiation with a merchant, one skill check is enough, for an important peace treaty negotiation, several different skill checks could be implemented.

5e can be used that way, but sadly it gives little guidance outside of combat to do that actually.

 

[abirdcall]

What if the spirit is actually a target being knocked flat? I think sometimes it makes sense why something is immune to a particular ability rule. If the entire identity/ability of a character is "knock things prone" and the character is invalidated by immunity, then the system isnt terribly robust for an RPG.

"Lenient bounds of reason" are going to vary exceedingly. Which is why I can envision players who will argue that their character's fire attack is so hot it can even kill a fire elemental, or that their trip ability is so good it can even trip snakes. Sort of a mental gymnastics to make sense of a character combat power that makes the game function. Now, on the flip side, I can also see GMs using immunity as a way to counter an ability that is too good/powerful. The GM is making the game function with a ruling thats not favorable to the player.

Which ever rules/rulings or rulings/rules philosophy you ascribe to will inform your take on the above.


I think there is too much of a gulf between does and doesn't belong under those skills. The player doesn't know where the guidelines are, and the GM doesn't know how to adjudicate an action made up on the fly. (Insert nobody reads the DMG here) This is particularly difficult since combat is entirely made up of guidelines and strictly written out abilities. The contrast is difficult to parse, so actions are declared in the strictest sense or just assumed not possible.


This sort of flies in the face of #2 though. What is the point of chunky and open ended if the eventual destination is specific and concise? I think this adds to what I was saying, if gameplay hasnt demanded a ruling in a consistent need, then its ambiguous for both player and GM. That leads to a lot of anxiety about treading new territory. If the game was all open and chunky and the point was for the GM and player to narrow through exercise, you;d see it more. Though, the combat system being so precise and detailed makes for a game mode code switch that is confusing for a lot of folks.

The thing with D&D is that optimal characters can handle many different types of challenges.

People hyper-focusing their character for "optimization" are accomplishing the opposite.

What usually ends up happening in conversations is both that the DM must cater encounters to be weak against their one thing they do and that the game is very easy because they dominate those encounters.

That isn't a problem with the game design.

 

[payn]

The thing with D&D is that optimal characters can handle many different types of challenges.

People hyper-focusing their character for "optimization" are accomplishing the opposite.

What usually ends up happening in conversations is both that the DM must cater encounters to be weak against their one thing they do and that the game is very easy because they dominate those encounters.

That isn't a problem with the game design.

It can be though. If the game is tactical and requires a certain role to be fulfilled, suddenly not being able to fulfill that role is a problem.

 

[abirdcall]

It can be though. If the game is tactical and requires a certain role to be fulfilled, suddenly not being able to fulfill that role is a problem.

Which is why hyper-focus doesn't work out in practice unless the party is huge and then the game is easy anyway.

 

[payn]

Which is why hyper-focus doesn't work out in practice unless the party is huge and then the game is easy anyway.

The game has had hyper focus design in the past, though its much relaxed now. I think that old habits die hard mentality confuses some folks in regards to how they play the game.

 

[Minigiant]

Which is why hyper-focus doesn't work out in practice unless the party is huge and then the game is easy anyway.

You hyper focus on what you consider is important in the game.

The disconnect happens when the game hyperfocuses on something that the group does not care about.

 

[I'm A Banana]

underbrush and rope typically don't fight back whereas talking with someone requires interacting with a conceptually independent free thinking individual.

Sure, that's just meaningful chance of failure. My point was just that in the play of the game, swinging a sword isn't ALWAYS a die roll. By default, it's not. We need to have an excuse to roll the dice.

...no it doesn't? like i just said you're dealing with an independent individual, and just like combat social situations have a ton of unseen yes still impactful extenuating influences on if you hit, in a conversation there are an equal number of influences on a person's mood and reaction in any given situation, this includes how articulate and of course charismatic your character manages to present themselves as (which is far from the same thing as how charismatic YOU manage to present them as).

I mean, I accept that you can make an argument for wanting to roll dice for social interaction. My point was that you can also make an argument for not wanting that, and that argument isn't hollow or thoughtless.

Like, if I'm putting together a jigsaw puzzle, there are, of course, random elements that might interfere with me completing it. I could lose a piece. I could have a major life event crop up. I could spill hot tea on it. Someone's cat could take an interest in it. But the randomness that exists there doesn't feel like a meaningful part of completing the puzzle or not.

Would you roll a die for someone completing a jigsaw puzzle in D&D? Certainly, you could make a case for it. But I also can see why in 50 years of the game we don't have a "Puzzle" skill and that attempts to introduce skills like it tend to fall a little flat.

At the end of the day wanting to roll dice or not on social interactions isn't about the argument you make, it's about if the group finds it adds to the fun. A lot of groups don't. Because the more basic rule, "pretend to be your character," covers most social interaction just fine. No need for the complexity.

because when you 'pretend to be your character' in a conversation you don't pretend all the little things that might go over poorly or imperfectly, taking such direct control of your character is IMO antithetical to properly simulating them and the world that they exist in, being able to so precisely declare what your character says is no different from being able to declare 'my character brings their blade up past the opponent's defence cutting their throat instantly' instead of making an attack roll to see if you hit.

You don't HAVE to roll dice to see if you hit. We often choose to because it's more fun that way.

oh but it is very random, your character said what they said, but there are a thousand different ways they can say what they said and how it came off and how the recipient recieved it and how they were feeling that day. there's no perfect combination of words and tone that you can be certain will come off right.

if you've ever had someone take your words the wrong way or misinterpret you then i don't know how you can genuinely say conversations happen without chance and unpredictability.

Again, you're making an argument for something that isn't really being debated.

The point I'm making is that for a lot of groups, "pretend to be your character" covers social interaction just fine, but people have a desire for more complexity in combat. That doesn't mean that other groups won't hold the exact opposite perspective.

 

[GMMichael]

. . . it is always helpful to understand that "The Great Thief Debate" was there in the beginning, and will always be with us. It is also important because, moreso than most RPGs, the Gygaxian/Arnesonian divide is hardbaked into the very essence of D&D.

"Always" is a strong word. But yes, the debate will persist as long as "role-playing" and "game" continue in their marriage. Let's note that with the evolution of the idea of marriage, perhaps the conflict between RP and G will evolve too.

Anyway, I will leave with the following idea/prediction- as D&D moves further into an on-line future, with VTT and so-on, I would expect that we will see continued expansion of the Gygaxian space, and a concomitant shrinking of the Arnesonian space.

You forgot two letters: A and I. With the birth (or slow creation from embarrassing precursors) of the DMinator, rules could eventually get kicked to the curb - because the DMinator adjudicates all. Ironically, this is what real DMs could have done and/or have been doing all along, but 1) the player-base doesn't want to hear that, and 2) WotC can sell one but not the other.