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

[clearstream]

OK, though it seems like a fairly crude approach. I guess, given that we're talking about 5e, more sophisticated approaches are off the table because "it wasn't done that way in 1974" basically (and anyway you'd have to rewrite half of 5e to do much that isn't roughly your suggestion, mechanically).

A DM could decide to consistently give advantage in such cases. Trouble with advantage though is, it's a bit overloaded and grabs other stuff that might not be DM's intent (or make much sense FTM.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A DM could decide to consistently give advantage in such cases. Trouble with advantage though is, it's a bit overloaded and grabs other stuff that might not be DM's intent (or make much sense FTM.)

Advantage is simple and easy to work, in my own game it is the ONLY situational modifier. Anything that doesn't warrant it, is not worth bothering with, and any situation where it isn't significant enough, probably should be handled another way. That is my feeling anyway.

 

[clearstream]

Advantage is simple and easy to work, in my own game it is the ONLY situational modifier. Anything that doesn't warrant it, is not worth bothering with, and any situation where it isn't significant enough, probably should be handled another way. That is my feeling anyway.

In your game, how does advantage and disadvantage stacking work?

 

[clearstream]

On the meaning of "meaningful", I wondered if one should say it's "something that matters to fictional positioning"? Against that, another poster made the point that not everything matters to fictional positioning** (in any game). Hence I see the rule as - do this wherever or as well as possible.

Another thought rattling around is the difference between kinds of rules available in the game. There's a gradient from

• player says what character does, DM says what rules apply, to
• player says what character does and what rule applies (sometimes through plain invokes, and other times through inevitability*)

Thinking in that direction, one can say that some things players say next are going to be validated by the presence of a matching rule. 5e spells are a strong example of this, as were 4e powers.


* That is, the rule that would always be judged applicable by "Jo DM" who knows all the rules, and the community practice and principles, and has nothing at stake.
** Or one resists the urge to say that there is anything that can't matter to fictional positioning, given the vastness of, and ambiguities in defining, what is in that set.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In your game, how does advantage and disadvantage stacking work?

Same as 5e. There's no such thing as 'stacking'. Honestly it is pretty rare IME to get several advantageous situations at once. If a character had a really OVERWHELMINGLY good situation, then the issue shouldn't be in doubt, fictionally.

 

[clearstream]

Same as 5e. There's no such thing as 'stacking'. Honestly it is pretty rare IME to get several advantageous situations at once. If a character had a really OVERWHELMINGLY good situation, then the issue shouldn't be in doubt, fictionally.

Thinking more of good and bad, when not in equal measure.

 

[clearstream]

On the meaning of "meaningful", I wondered if one should say it's "something that matters to fictional positioning"? Against that, another poster made the point that not everything matters to fictional positioning** (in any game). Hence I see the rule as - do this wherever or as well as possible.

Continuing this thought, I take

A player's position is the total set of all of the legitimate gameplay options available to her at this moment of play.

And change it to

A player's position is the total set of all of the valid gameplay options available to her at this moment of play.

Valid connects in my mind to a longstanding idea of strategically viable as well as legal. That brings effectiveness into fictional positioning instead of outside it. Going forward (and in hindsight), that's what I mean by fictional positioning.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thinking more of good and bad, when not in equal measure.

Again, this is one spot where I just emulated a 5e rule, since it seemed to fit. No matter how many instances of advantage or disadvantage exist there are four possibilities:

1. No advantage or disadvantage at all, roll 1d20.
2. One or more instances of Advantage, roll 2d20, take the highest.
3. One or more instances of Disadvantage, roll 2d20, take the lowest.
4. One or more instances of both advantage and disadvantage, roll 1d20.

The object is to reward tactics, and this does so, without all sorts of mathletics. So, if you're dazed and you're attacking with surprise, you just make an ordinary attack. At least you're not just getting the dazed penalty, and OTOH its not obviated by being hidden either. So this rule does the minimum necessary work, and avoids any sort of stacking, which generally breaks d20 games.

In full, the math of this game is pretty simple, you get an ability bonus (there is effectively always one), a proficiency bonus (always +5 when it applies), a level bonus (current .66/level rounded down), and a 'permanent' bonus, which accounts for ALL other non-varying possibilities, and never exceeds +3 (I guess it could, items never get higher than +3). Because none of these are especially situational, they generally don't vary from moment to moment (though they obviously not all applicable in every situation, but that is based on the nature of what grants the bonus, not the situation). The point being, since NONE of these ever stack, and there is no 'untyped bonus' that could, you pretty much play with fixed, known, bonuses which can be written down on your character sheet.

So, basically I looked at 4e's rules and removed stuff that made the 'in play' side more complicated. I want to pay attention to fiction more than intricate rules process. I LIKED 4e, but I'm old, and my brain does not want to wrap itself around lots of fiddly moving parts, (and this @pemerton, is why I will never run BW, though I like the idea of PLAYING TB2, but @Manbearcat will have the fun of remembering exactly what the invoking your nature rules do, lol).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

On the meaning of "meaningful", I wondered if one should say it's "something that matters to fictional positioning"? Against that, another poster made the point that not everything matters to fictional positioning** (in any game). Hence I see the rule as - do this wherever or as well as possible.

Another thought rattling around is the difference between kinds of rules available in the game. There's a gradient from

• player says what character does, DM says what rules apply, to
• player says what character does and what rule applies (sometimes through plain invokes, and other times through inevitability*)

Thinking in that direction, one can say that some things players say next are going to be validated by the presence of a matching rule. 5e spells are a strong example of this, as were 4e powers.


* That is, the rule that would always be judged applicable by "Jo DM" who knows all the rules, and the community practice and principles, and has nothing at stake.
** Or one resists the urge to say that there is anything that can't matter to fictional positioning, given the vastness of, and ambiguities in defining, what is in that set.

Continuing this thought, I take

A player's position is the total set of all of the legitimate gameplay options available to her at this moment of play.

And change it to

A player's position is the total set of all of the valid gameplay options available to her at this moment of play.

Valid connects in my mind to a longstanding idea of strategically viable as well as legal. That brings effectiveness into fictional positioning instead of outside it. Going forward (and in hindsight), that's what I mean by fictional positioning.

Well, I'm not sure about the 'effective' part. I think I'd call that 'tactics', or 'strategy' perhaps, and say that it is an element of play. D&D traditionally values tactics and strategy, some other games not so much. FATE based games generally, for instance, seem more concerned with the NATURE of things, rather than the details of what is most effective. OTOH, I agree that fictional positioning incorporates what factors WILL MAKE something good or bad, usually expressed through mechanics, but again that depends on the game (and again, D&D tends to lean on mechanics here, but not entirely).

 

[clearstream]

Well, I'm not sure about the 'effective' part. I think I'd call that 'tactics', or 'strategy' perhaps, and say that it is an element of play. D&D traditionally values tactics and strategy, some other games not so much. FATE based games generally, for instance, seem more concerned with the NATURE of things, rather than the details of what is most effective. OTOH, I agree that fictional positioning incorporates what factors WILL MAKE something good or bad, usually expressed through mechanics, but again that depends on the game (and again, D&D tends to lean on mechanics here, but not entirely).

I was thinking of @Manbearcat's discussion of skilled play in DW. Were we even to abolish mechanics, I felt like effectiveness is right in there with legitimacy. Asserting that every legitimate choice can be assigned an effectiveness (likely not accurately, but that's unimportant.) Provided our fiction matters at all.