D&D 5E 5e consequence-resolution

[iserith]

Notably, the designers say that if you only ever use 10, 15, and 20 for DCs, then the game runs fine. In my experience, that is true. Then it's just a matter of being consistent with those 3 DCs for given approaches to goals that come up more often than others.

 

[Hussar]

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.

 

[Hussar]

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.

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]

Yet another example of a theory that pretty much proves you couldn’t possibly having any fun. And yet somehow millions of people are.

 

[soviet]

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.

Just to note, in the real world I find this haggling technique to be of mixed effectiveness.

 

[Oofta]

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.

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?

 

[Oofta]

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.

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?

 

[Oofta]

Yet another example of a theory that pretty much proves you couldn’t possibly having any fun. And yet somehow millions of people are.

Shh! No appeals to popularity by mentioning that it apparently works for so many people!

 

[Hussar]

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?

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]

Shh! No appeals to popularity by mentioning that it apparently works for so many people!

The unwashed masses wouldn’t recognize Fun if it killed them and took their stuff. Right?