D&D 3E/3.5 A 3E/4E powergamer DMs Storm King's Thunder

[flametitan]

Why rolling a DC? Mostly because that's how the books present things and that's what the players seem to expect, to point of declaring skill rolls before even consulting me.

As Iserith would say, that's a bad thing. They should never roll before you tell them what to roll, or if they even should roll. Discourage the habit. Perhaps even outright tell them that they should maybe be a little less gung-ho about rolling.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

If you aren't already, maybe try liberally rewarding player cleverness with the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. After all, advantage transforms 2-3 rolls into 4-6 rolls, which should greatly reduce the variance. And if you can train them to always be on the lookout for ways to tilt the situation to their advantage and avoid walking disadvantageous situations you might have a more interactive experience.

Pretty much this - for our lot. Crunched straight, I think its fair to say 5E can be described as 'swingy'. Personally, I like it that way but hey, I'm a lover of encouraging play where I can grant advantage/disadvantage.

The DM can also decide that circumstances influence a roll in one direction or the other and grant advantage or impose disadvantage as a result. PHB pg. 173

Players should be look for clever ways to gain advantage, and the DM looking to grant it. 'Rulings, not rules' or whatever folks are calling it. Advantage and Disadvantage aren't perfect, but they're a flexible set of tools that can encourage all to really engage with the context of an encounter, rather than their - and the enemy's - stat blocks.

So aye, be you a 'maths guy' or what have you, perhaps try encouraging folks to narrate/attempt their actions so that they might gain advantage - even if its as simple as stepping up onto a box. All the while remember that we can grant disadvantage to up the ante and present a challenge, depending on the context.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Other versions of D&D don't emphasize the d20 like 5E does.

All editions used d20 for attacks & saves, and all d20 editions also use it for skill resolution - and virtually never use any other method. Sure, earlier editions used d6 and % and other resolution mechanics quite a bit, but I don't think that's what the issue really is...

5E has bounded accuracy and fast combat, both of which put heavy emphasis on the randomness of the d20.

Acknowledged. It'd be hard to tune BA differently without making the game confusing or inconsistent for your players - a real consideration running AL as you may have players moving to and from your table session to session... But, you can tune combats to go longer and in more depth by adjusting monster damage (down) and hps (up - and/or using more monsters, though there are further risks there). If you can design a combat to go 5-10 rounds instead of 1-3, each individual d20 roll becomes lower-impact, player decisions become more meaningful, and combats more interesting. You'll have to have fewer, more challenging combats, and keep an eye on intraparty balance lest you disfavor some classes, but it's none of it particularly harder or more work than just running a good game usually is - just different parameters.

to point of declaring skill rolls before even consulting me.

That has annoyed me in every game with a skill system since RuneQuest, but /particularly/ in d20 D&D. 5e's official, right there in the basic pdf even, resolution sequence is player declares /action/, not check, action; DM determines success/failure OR calls for a check & sets a DC; DM narrates results. Show them the passage if you have to. It's a cornerstone of 5e DM Empowerment, and if your not taking full advantage of DM Empowerment across the board, your frustration is understandable. 5e doesn't just offer DM Empowerment, it needs it.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

5e's official, right there in the basic pdf even, resolution sequence is player declares /action/, not check, action; DM determines success/failure OR calls for a check & sets a DC; DM narrates results.

Aye, folk seemed to forget that - or players bring bad habits to tables. And it is a habit, one that can be checked and rectified.

I'm teaching some new folks atm and we break it down a little more, for the sake of clarity. I explain it is:

State what you want your character do achieve (intent) - then they say how they're going to do it (action).
DM then takes it from there.

[sblock]The example given was, rather than stating 'I hide! I got a 14!', they'd say, 'Timmy Rogue wants to hide (intent)' 'She's looking for something to crouch behind - are there any barrels around, boxes or things he can get behind?' (action). DM then takes it from there.

The intent/action came about because of the disconnects that could occur during theater-of-the mind style play, where often a player might have a different understanding of the environment or be operating under a different set of assumptions. The alternative might be to have the DM describe all the key elements of a locale, but really, this way the player offers the DM a prompt, who can than support play by reacting and adjudicating as they wish.

Of course, it does rely on the DM being prepared to embrace a certain fluidity with their setting - and I can see how running a per-packaged adventure straight up might may this tricky.[/sblock]

 

[thecasualoblivion]

All editions used d20 for attacks & saves, and all d20 editions also use it for skill resolution - and virtually never use any other method. Sure, earlier editions used d6 and % and other resolution mechanics quite a bit, but I don't think that's what the issue really is...

You are just talking about how things look on paper. In an actual game, it plays very differently depending on circumstances, as I have described. How they play differently is what's important, and my issue, not how it looks on paper.

Acknowledged. It'd be hard to tune BA differently without making the game confusing or inconsistent for your players - a real consideration running AL as you may have players moving to and from your table session to session... But, you can tune combats to go longer and in more depth by adjusting monster damage (down) and hps (up - and/or using more monsters, though there are further risks there). If you can design a combat to go 5-10 rounds instead of 1-3, each individual d20 roll becomes lower-impact, player decisions become more meaningful, and combats more interesting. You'll have to have fewer, more challenging combats, and keep an eye on intraparty balance lest you disfavor some classes, but it's none of it particularly harder or more work than just running a good game usually is - just different parameters.

It is a lot more work, especially when I can name three systems, 4E, 13th Age, and nWoD that I'm more or less perfectly comfortable running right out of the box. The changes we are discussing here are not minor tweaks. You mention further risks, which has always been my experience in such things. A DM is an amateur game designer at best, and messing with things often involves unpleasant and unintended consequences.

 

[Darkness]

It's more of a guerill4 war. Or maybe t4rrorism? It's as if the last Japanese soldier has staggered out of the jungle years after the war was over... but he just kept on fighting.

Please keep it civil. It's not cool to refer to other users in such a way.

If you think this thread isn't worthwile, feel free to walk away from it and maybe do something you enjoy more.

If a user's posting annoys you, consider using your Ignore List or just not reading their posts.

If you have any questions, feel free to PM me.

-Darkness,
EN World moderator

 

[Tony Vargas]

You are just talking about how things look on paper. In an actual game, it plays very differently depending on circumstances, as I have described. How they play differently is what's important, and my issue, not how it looks on paper.

See now you're making me flash back to the edition war, again. Sure, any edition of D&D can play quite differently from one table to the next, RPGs are like that, even the most carefully designed are still unavoidably open-ended. What's between the covers of the rule books is in black & white and can be discussed with some clarity (less the more vague the edition in question is, but some), how it plays is important, but it's also in our hands. How 5e, in particular, plays is very much in the hands of the DM.

It is a lot more work... The changes we are discussing here are not minor tweaks. You mention further risks, which has always been my experience in such things. A DM is an amateur game designer at best, and messing with things often involves unpleasant and unintended consequences.

I don't consider it a lot more work than running 5e normally, because 5e is a particularly demanding edition to run. You're making rulings all the time, whether you're trying to run 'RAW' (which is prettymuch an oxymoron, since RAW punts to your judgement a lot) or not. I don't think you'd need to re-design 5e to get it playing more like you want. I don't even think you'd really need to extensively re-write monsters to do what I've described, adjusting them on the fly would work fine. (Heck, from behind the screen you don't even need to worry about how many hps a monster has, just how long you want to keep it up & fighting to make a good scene of it - damage you need to be a little more careful with, since you'll be telling players how much their PCs take - but even that can change a bit as a combat unfolds.)

 

[ammulder]

I can't argue with a D20 being swingy. 1-20 with equal odds is a very large range.

I'd also encourage taking another look at Advantage. Even if you (as the DM) don't want to be in the position of deciding when to grant an "arbitrary" advantage or disadvantage, there are plenty of ways for it to come into the picture.

If the fighter's attacks should be more reliable, you could have him ask the cleric to distract the enemy (Help action). Or perhaps a Bless spell for an alternative bonus.

The PCs could be attacking from cover or hiding or Invisibility more, perhaps.

I guess my point is, some of the bonuses that were previously generated during character creation can be generated by battlefield tactics instead.

I don't necessarily find that to be a bad thing. The old system (which for me was 3.5) had its problems too, where for any given situation, some characters would need a heaping dose of luck to succeed/make a significant contribution while others would do it blindfolded. That could be just as frustrating, and lead to the "keep up with the Joneses" mentality when advancing characters. Especially because the enemies were improving with the Joneses no matter what.