D&D 5E 5th ed D&D general impressions from a new player and DM.

[fearsomepirate]

That’s quite possibly why they agonise over every decision. Players who fear impending death every encounter are encouraged to be more cautious and more efficient with time and resources.

I said I started running harder encounters in response to player slowness, not the other way around. I could name the specific individuals whose presence quadruples play time. If they're not there, we move a lot faster and get a lot more done.

I’ve learned to enjoy the odd fight or two when they get to kick ass.

I've learned such fights are a waste of no less than an hour if the overthinkers show up.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I said I started running harder encounters in response to player slowness, not the other way around. I could name the specific individuals whose presence quadruples play time. If they're not there, we move a lot faster and get a lot more done.



I've learned such fights are a waste of no less than an hour if the overthinkers show up.

Time to bust out the turn clock then, if this is a problem. If a player doesn’t come up with something in 30 seconds, their character takes the Dodge action and play proceeds to the next person in the initiative order.

 

[clearstream]

When it comes to the birds and an athletics check - to me it's just not clear that the issue is the amount of time the party needs to get to the top of the cliff. The birds see them, does the party beat them to the top of the cliff?

Kind of an odd scene in my mind TBH if I understand it because how long would it take the birds to get there? How do you know they're dangerous? But I think Iserith was looking for a cost to failure other than falling? Maybe? A better scenario IMHO would have been simply not wanting to fall on hazardous rocks or perhaps carnivorous crabs or so on.

And on the other hand, I must really give credit for people being willing to put their concepts in writing to share with others. The fact is that @iserith has taken the trouble to provide a point of reference. What is good in the guide is that he considers passive checks as well as active, and - rather too assiduously for me - concerns himself with immediate consequences.

I would say not every consequence needs to be immediate, and some can just be inherent in the check, like failing a check to recall an important bit of information. It's hard to really capture play at the table in written dialogue and I think one can sense that in a certain over-brightness and over-specificity of the player-DM exchange. While I can see that creative application of the rules is helpful encouragement, a guide might take more care to arise in an explicable way from RAW.

And then again, I'm also starting to think DM's should be more open to variant skill checks. I'm conflicted, as I believe it is important to vest each ability with value and not let dump stats be without consequence by allowing glib players to fall back onto their primary or secondary abilities. On the other hand, there do seem to be scenarios where a variant application makes sense. Of course, that would need to be called out if in a guide.

What I would like to see? A collaborative effort, using the same scenarios showing different approaches. I mean, ideally it would be a set of streamed sessions. But you can't get there without actual examples, and a willingness to explain why you did something the way you did it which is something Iserith was unwilling to do.

That could add a lot of value. I mean, one can hardly complain if the person doing the writing does not serve ones every wish, but on the other hand, it would be good to see alternative ways to play out the same case. You mean also in different DMing modes, right?

 

[fearsomepirate]

Time to bust out the turn clock then, if this is a problem. If a player doesn’t come up with something in 30 seconds, their character takes the Dodge action and play proceeds to the next person in the initiative order.

Man, I have tried, but I'm just not enough of a ruthless taskmaster. I think all my ruthlessness gets absorbed in preparing ambushes.

 

[clearstream]

Man, I have tried, but I'm just not enough of a ruthless taskmaster. I think all my ruthlessness gets absorbed in preparing ambushes.

I find that hard to do as well. I currently DM for a group of five and one is unfamiliar with the rules and hesitates over what action to take, and another is very familiar with the rules and likes to have time to consider alternatives. The latter player is quick enough that we just let it slide. The former player - I tried applying "dodge and move on", but that felt bad. I dislike the possibility a new player's experience might feel like we don't care about their contribution to events.

On the other hand, when the bard fell unconscious in shallow water in front of a hydra, I'm very happy to take a few more attacks on him. Sounds like we are in the same boat!

 

[Oofta]

And on the other hand, I must really give credit for people being willing to put their concepts in writing to share with others. The fact is that @iserith has taken the trouble to provide a point of reference. What is good in the guide is that he considers passive checks as well as active, and - rather too assiduously for me - concerns himself with immediate consequences.

I would say not every consequence needs to be immediate, and some can just be inherent in the check, like failing a check to recall an important bit of information. It's hard to really capture play at the table in written dialogue and I think one can sense that in a certain over-brightness and over-specificity of the player-DM exchange. While I can see that creative application of the rules is helpful encouragement, a guide might take more care to arise in an explicable way from RAW.

I appreciate what he tried to do, and I get not wanting to put out specific details. On the other hand, while nobody can write a perfect document, if you put a document like this out there you have to be open to criticism and suggestions.

Taking the example of climbing the cliff specifically, I think a breakout sidebar might be good. Explain the thought process and options. I mean, I'm just kind of guessing as to why the climb check is even related to the birds at all.

And then again, I'm also starting to think DM's should be more open to variant skill checks. I'm conflicted, as I believe it is important to vest each ability with value and not let dump stats be without consequence by allowing glib players to fall back onto their primary or secondary abilities. On the other hand, there do seem to be scenarios where a variant application makes sense. Of course, that would need to be called out if in a guide.

I use variant ability/skill combos now and then. One wizard trying to persuade someone else might be more of an intelligence check than charisma. That half orc intimidating someone by lifting them up by the front of their shirt using strength for intimidate. For me though, it does have to make sense in the narrative it's not just an anything goes. But I will also say things like "Give me an athletics check, but you can use strength or dexterity because ___".

That could add a lot of value. I mean, one can hardly complain if the person doing the writing does not serve ones every wish, but on the other hand, it would be good to see alternative ways to play out the same case. You mean also in different DMing modes, right?

Yeah, different modes of handling non-combat challenges with examples would be ideal.

Maybe even just have say 2-3 narrators. Brief blurb at the top saying what approach they like. Then go through the different scenes and talk about how they would handle it. No arguments, just "Here's how I'd handle it and why". It's stuff you could probably gather reading through threads, but that can be a slog.

There's nothing wrong with having different approaches but without actual concrete examples it's difficult to understand what people are saying. You mentioning not understanding how the birds played into an athletics check is not saying the example is wrong, it's saying that we need more explanation of what the DM has in mind.

As another example, in the PDF there's a line where it says: "I try to recall what I know about beetles like these." Now this is something that as far as I can tell Iserith is really adamant on. A player never says "Can I make a nature check to know what these beetles are?" is not allowed* I guess? Personally I'd be okay with that because it just means the player is reminding me that they're trained in nature.

Neither way is "right" IMHO, but you could do that back and forth and both sides just stating their case in a sentence or two.

Last, but not least, it can be tough to have people question what you say. But there is no one right way and feedback can be meant as constructive even if the person on the receiving end doesn't feel that way.

*I tried to get clarification from him at one point but he blocked me for asking questions like this.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think it goes further than that. The crucial context is what happens across the narrative, not delivered as a series of potted ability checks. It doesn't matter, for example, if the only immediate cost of failing a history check is lack of the knowledge it might have delivered, if that check is meaningful to your players within your contextual arc.

Lore recollection is a tricky beast, and DMs tend to be pretty idiosyncratic in how they handle them. Would you mind rephrasing this with a different example, as I’m not sure I follow your meaning.

One can also draw on the power of symbolism, and player imagination. I can say - make an athletics check to climb this tower wall - and that really can be enough for my players. They have an internal picture of the wall. They understand that for whatever reason it is difficult to climb. Any differences in what is envisioned are only salient if they will impact play. Almost all differences won't.

That’s certainly true, but I think one should be careful about relying on this too much. Yes, the players can all put together from the fact that the DM asked for a check when they said they wanted to climb the wall that something about the climb makes it especially difficult, and it doesn’t necessarily matter if what they all imagine creating that difficulty is difficult. However, the fictional context can become extremely vague if this is how most activity is framed.

I believe a DM - especially a new DM - should start simple: light-touch narration, not heavy-handed. I have seen groups turned off a campaign by a DM overindulging their passion for narration... players literally falling asleep at the table as their DM layered detail upon detail.

Agreed! Long-winded or overly prosy narration can be difficult to pay attention to, leading to the same problem of vagueness. This is why I emphasize reasonable specificity - both in the DM’s description of the environment and the players’ description of their characters’ actions.

Also - as a point of style - avoid adjectives that tell players what they should be feeling. Are the beetles disconcerting? I don't know? Do you feel disconcerted by them? Yes? Then fine, they are disconcerting.

Agreed! This can be tricky at times, but it’s well worth the effort in my opinion.

 

[robus]

I believe understanding the core rules themselves are a better starting point, perhaps in the context of one of the more well-regarded adventures such as Phandelver. The DMG also contains a lot of excellent, thought provoking material.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I believe the writers of 5e wrote for an audience of existing D&D players rather than new players. There is precious little handholding in Phandelver (and the first encounter is quite tricky to run well). The DMG is arse-backwards and the PHB is utterly overwhelming - character creation is an unholy exercise in back and forth page flipping.

Iserith's guide to action adjudication was like a breath of fresh air to this new DM, clearly connecting ability checks to declared actions and providing lots of examples.

But anyway we can agree to disagree.

 

[Asisreo]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I believe the writers of 5e wrote for an audience of existing D&D players rather than new players. There is precious little handholding in Phandelver (and the first encounter is quite tricky to run well). The DMG is arse-backwards and the PHB is utterly overwhelming - character creation is an unholy exercise in back and forth page flipping.

Iserith's guide to action adjudication was like a breath of fresh air to this new DM, clearly connecting ability checks to declared actions and providing lots of examples.

But anyway we can agree to disagree.

Absolutely. That is, to this day, my biggest criticism with WoTC. I mean, making a character isn't that hard and running combat sorta makes sense.

But try having the players understand some other fundamental stuff and they'll be hard pressed.

Especially ability checks, which people
DM's still ask for rolls where there was no chance of failure or guaranteed failure.

 

[Oofta]

Especially ability checks, which people still ask for rolls where there was no chance of failure or guaranteed failure.

What's the issue? The DM either replies "It's not possible" or "There's no need to roll". I mean, I agree you just wasted 20 seconds but it doesn't seem like a big issue to me.