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.You prefer rules that delineate how widely known a fact is in the game world? That sounds... unnecessarily prescriptive. I'm not sure that's exactly what you are saying, but it kinda seems like it.
As DM, yes, I do determine what is common knowledge in my world. The published adventures do a little bit of this as well.
Just to note, in the real world I find this haggling technique to be of mixed effectiveness.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.
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.
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?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.
Shh! No appeals to popularity by mentioning that it apparently works for so many people!Yet another example of a theory that pretty much proves you couldn’t possibly having any fun. And yet somehow millions of people are.
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?
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!![]()
Simulating whether you are successful at a particular task. All that needs returned there is pass/fail.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.
Or consider this: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.
In D&D the prescribed system for determining DC's is the DM decides. That tends to be both a pro and a con.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.
From what I understand of the term, "indexed system", I think you're spot on. If the system for determining everything - not only the DC's, but the "appropriate fiction" (after all, you increased the DC because you, the DM, felt that my method was a bad one - which rolls us right back into Mother-May-I territory), what kind of action the check is, and the events in the game - is entirely in the hands of the DM, and the only thing the system is actually telling us is the character's bonus on the die roll, again, something that is entirely divorced from anything inside the game world - then the system is basically just "make stuff up".In D&D the prescribed system for determining DC's is the DM decides. That tends to be both a pro and a con.
For a DM to set a DC in D&D he considers the scene he's described and the NPC's in it and determines the DC based on that and past precedents if applicable. He then sets the DC and proceeds to resolution. (This is a system. What it sounds like you want isn't just a system but a specific system - an index of DC's for common tasks)
The system does provide guidance. Difficulty can go anywhere from very easy to nearly impossible. It doesn't give specifics because there are a near infinite number of challenges that are not opposed rolls.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.
From what I understand of the term, "indexed system", I think you're spot on. If the system for determining everything - not only the DC's, but the "appropriate fiction" (after all, you increased the DC because you, the DM, felt that my method was a bad one - which rolls us right back into Mother-May-I territory), what kind of action the check is, and the events in the game - is entirely in the hands of the DM, and the only thing the system is actually telling us is the character's bonus on the die roll, again, something that is entirely divorced from anything inside the game world - then the system is basically just "make stuff up".
If that's the system we have, then, fair enough. But, "make stuff up" isn't a simulation of anything. Which is where I fell down this rabbit hole in the first place. @Oofta's claim to prefer simulation. But, the system doesn't actually simulate anything. Pass/Fail isn's a simulation when the conditions of the pass/fail are entirely arbitrary.
So, yes, I would like a skill system that is a bit more meaty than what 5e has given us. I would like a skill system that is at least as complex as the combat system. Or, at the very least, anything more than just "Here's the bonus on your d20 roll, make everything else up as you go along."
I'm not saying we have to go full on GURPS or anything like that. There's a considerable middle ground here. A LITTLE more complex would go a long way. Again, anything more than basically a "Roll high" system. Basic, standard skill actions should not require the DM to create virtually every single step of the resolution. Imagine if the combat system was like that. You have an attack bonus and nothing else. The enemy's AC is entirely in the hands of the DM and can change depending on how you describe your action. People would lose their poop. There's no way people would accept a combat system like that.
But, for some reason, it's perfectly fine to have half the game (as in the non-combat part of the game) be pretty much freeform.![]()
Sure, but the GM must also respect the fiction, and if they don't it becomes blatantly obvious. Like it would be hella weird if that farmer's shed had an enchanted adamantium door so that the GM can set a high DC.In 3.5 we had some example DCs. One was given the type of wall you were given a DC to climb them. But it didn't really matter because as a DM that just meant I had to reverse engineer the target DC I wanted. If I had low level PCs and I wanted a wall they could climb but it shouldn't be too difficult then I wanted a DC 10 so I had to look up on the table how do describe it.
I really don't agree with @Hussar on this, but I also think some charts of examples of DCs for things that commonly feature in adventures is a good thing, and helps the GM to consistently extrapolate further DCs.
Yeah, there are a lot of things in D&D that lean on the DM being fair. Not sure how to get around that. When it comes to examples, that goes back to page count, simplicity and speed of play.Sure, but the GM must also respect the fiction, and if they don't it becomes blatantly obvious. Like it would be hella weird if that farmer's shed had an enchanted adamantium door so that the GM can set a high DC.
I really don't agree with @Hussar on this, but I also think some charts of examples of DCs for things that commonly feature in adventures is a good thing, and helps the GM to consistently extrapolate further DCs.
Sure. Comprehensive list is impossible and impractical. But I don't think a little bit more would hurt. Setting some benchmarks that help extrapolating. Perhaps skill descriptions could have some sample DCs for common uses? I don't know, this is not a thing that is a problem for me, as I have my own internalised model, but I can see how new GMs might benefit from having a bit more examples.There are some guidelines, it just can't ever be comprehensive.
One problem I have with set DCs is that it assumes everyone’s imagined world is more consistent with each other than they need be.Sure. Comprehensive list is impossible and impractical. But I don't think a little bit more would hurt. Setting some benchmarks that help extrapolating. Perhaps skill descriptions could have some sample DCs for common uses? I don't know, this is not a thing that is a problem for me, as I have my own internalised model, but I can see how new GMs might benefit from having a bit more examples.