D&D 5E 5e* - D&D-now

[Oofta]

Yes, well, if they haven't played a game that has the concept, you cannot assume they do know it. When you aren't face-to-face with folks, it then behooves one to treat it as if the idea is new, until proven otherwise.

There just seems to be an underlying theme I see frequently. That people who haven't ever played a game with concept X either can't understand it or are completely locked into concepts as presented by D&D with no deviation. It was heavily implied that only people who played other games with success-with-complications could possibly use that option.

I apologize if my note seemed overly harsh, it's just an observation about phrasing that may have given an unintended impression.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There just seems to be an underlying theme I see frequently. That people who haven't ever played a game with concept X either can't understand it or are completely locked into concepts as presented by D&D with no deviation. It was heavily implied that only people who played other games with success-with-complications could possibly use that option.

I apologize if my note seemed overly harsh, it's just an observation about phrasing that may have given an unintended impression.

I perhaps wasn't entirely clear. My point wasn't that only people who played other games would use the option... it was that people who didn't know the option was even a thing wouldn't necessarily feel the option was missing from the game in the first place (since you can't miss something you never had.) That's not to say some players wouldn't like the rule were it to appear in the game and they were finally introduced to it... but the people who say "Rule X should be in D&D" are the people who are already familiar with Rule X from other games and want it introduced. But like I said... if they already know and like Rule X... they can insert it into their game without it needing to be an official rule.

And quite frankly we see this way of thinking all the time... people believing and saying that some rule they like should be in the game even if the designers or the general public don't like or want it-- the theory being those people can just choose not to use it if it was in. As though the opposite couldn't also be true... if a player wanted a rule for their game that it didn't have, they couldn't just choose to add it. It's an amusing dichotomy.

 

[clearstream]

I perhaps wasn't entirely clear. My point wasn't that only people who played other games would use the option... it was that people who didn't know the option was even a thing wouldn't necessarily feel the option was missing from the game in the first place (since you can't miss something you never had.) That's not to say some players wouldn't like the rule were it to appear in the game and they were finally introduced to it... but the people who say "Rule X should be in D&D" are the people who are already familiar with Rule X from other games and want it introduced. But like I said... if they already know and like Rule X... they can insert it into their game without it needing to be an official rule.

And quite frankly we see this way of thinking all the time... people believing and saying that some rule they like should be in the game even if the designers or the general public don't like or want it-- the theory being those people can just choose not to use it if it was in. As though the opposite couldn't also be true... if a player wanted a rule for their game that it didn't have, they couldn't just choose to add it. It's an amusing dichotomy.

It's not really for me a question of like or dislike, it's more the evolution of the understood mechanics and what is entailed for system expressiveness. An evolution of d20 that appears in 5e is advantage/disadvantage... this is in that vein.

 

[Maxperson]

it was that people who didn't know the option was even a thing wouldn't necessarily feel the option was missing from the game in the first place (since you can't miss something you never had.)

It isn't missing from the game. It's in the 5e DMG.

"SUCCESS AT A COST
Failure can be tough, but the agony is compounded when a character fails by the barest margin. When a character fails a roll by only 1 or 2, you can allow the character to succeed at the cost of a complication or hindrance. Such complications can run along any of the following lines:

• A character manages to get her sword past a
hobgoblin's defenses and turn a near miss into a hit,
but the hobgoblin twists its shield and disarms her.
• A character narrowly escapes the full brunt of a
fireball but ends up prone.
• A character fails to intimidate a kobold prisoner, but
the kobold reveals its secrets anyway while shrieking
at the top of its lungs, alerting other nearby monsters.
A character manages to finish an arduous climb to the
top of a cliff despite slipping, only to realize that the
rope on which his companions dangle below him is
close to breaking.

When you introduce costs such as these, try to make them obstacles and setbacks that change the nature of the adventuring situation. In exchange for success, players must consider new ways of facing the challenge. You can also use this technique when a character succeeds on a roll by hitting the DC exactly, complicating marginal success in interesting ways."

 

[Oofta]

I perhaps wasn't entirely clear. My point wasn't that only people who played other games would use the option... it was that people who didn't know the option was even a thing wouldn't necessarily feel the option was missing from the game in the first place (since you can't miss something you never had.) That's not to say some players wouldn't like the rule were it to appear in the game and they were finally introduced to it... but the people who say "Rule X should be in D&D" are the people who are already familiar with Rule X from other games and want it introduced. But like I said... if they already know and like Rule X... they can insert it into their game without it needing to be an official rule.

And quite frankly we see this way of thinking all the time... people believing and saying that some rule they like should be in the game even if the designers or the general public don't like or want it-- the theory being those people can just choose not to use it if it was in. As though the opposite couldn't also be true... if a player wanted a rule for their game that it didn't have, they couldn't just choose to add it. It's an amusing dichotomy.

For what it's worth, I do think what happens on a failure is a valid topic. I just don't think it's a rule thing: you didn't succeed at what you were attempting, so the DM needs to decide what happens. That can take any number of forms.

Trying to jump further than you can automatically and don't make the roll? Assuming that the DM decided a DC 15 (medium difficulty) and you get an 11. Okay, maybe you make the leap but fall prone. Make an 8? You jumped far enough to grab on. But some of that's going to depend on situations. Fail to perceive the McGuffin that would have led to the bandits hideout? Maybe it just means they find the hideout later but the bandits had time to prepare. Or maybe this was the third clue they missed and they never find the bandits hideout. The world goes on without the bandit fight and they don't get paid.

I guess I just don't think in those terms. I think of goals, motivations and expectations for PCs and NPCs in my campaign world but also the goals, motivations and expectations of my players. Sometimes failure can be more fun. They never find the bandit hideout so Black Jackie the notorious bandit becomes an ongoing nemesis. It's not a "rule" in any way, it's thinking about what's going to work best at your table.

Or maybe I'm just missing the whole point but to me the only rule I have for failure is how to make that failure fun for the group.