D&D 5E Can a PC perform a miracle with a stat/skill check?

[Manbearcat]

Thanks @Manbearcat, no pressure or worries about the timeframe of your replies.

Thanks. Bit of a moment so I'll try to get more in here.

If I'm understanding you clearly from your post, when you speak of adding tension/drama it is mostly because of the the subjective use of the skill DC.

I'm not sure I could put a percentage on it, but It is surely a part of it.

It perpetuates the focus being exclusively on the conflict-charged scene. The "on-screen action" will always contain threats and imminent danger of a certain difficulty whereby the antagonism will (a) never be relatively trivial nor (b) be wholly beyond the PCs' means. The design is metagame and outcome-based (* synched with PC build #s, usually a conflict resolution framework, and GMing techniques and principles), engineered to consistently deliver drama and climax. You don't want unclimbable mountains and you don't want doors that are trivially bypassed.

Contrast that with serial world exploration where the expectation for gameplay is that the "on-screen action" will invariably have the PCs sometimes encounter and interact with stuff that is relatively trivial or stuff that is wholly beyond their means....or spend a stretch of gameplay on conflict-neutral color. The design is based around the "exploration of a living, breathing world" premise...not to push play toward conflict and focus the experience exclusively on dramatic scenes. Now and again, you do want unclimbable mountains so PCs have to figure out other ways around (what spell to deploy, etc). Now and again, you do want doors that are trivially bypassed...or that at least look like doors. The door may be animate, a mimic, be trapped, or have an earworm (or whatever the creature was). Part of that sort of play is meant to sow paranoia in players and to test PC skill in exploration procedures.

In 5e, the higher one's level, the easier the easy/medium/hard tasks become to the point where the DM allows one to auto-succeed in tasks which lack 'dramatic pressure' so to speak (mechanically chance of failure is low). So 5e similar to 4e one enters the paragon/epic tier where simple tasks are immediately ignored and only when tasks appropriate to one's power level can challenge one does one generally roll to ensure success, so there is always that 'dramatic pressure' and in that way higher DCs are set which are line with the in-game fiction which as you say in more cases than not, IMO, are objectively set.

So whether one uses a scaling system like in 4e or 5e's bounded accuracy, the DM always makes one roll in times of uncertainty or when failure is a real possibility as you say so as to ensure dramatic pressure exists through the mechanics.

However, I do not agree with you that 'dramatic tension' is lessened because one uses the 5e mechanic instead of the 4e. There is no basis for that - to reiterate, as one rises in levels the challengers one faces are greater, stakes increase due to the in-game fiction and so the DCs for those remarkable tasks.

Example: the Jesters skill challenge of summoning Charon would not be performed by lower level PCs, the DCs in a skill challenge for such a task would always be at least 25+ therefore ensuring mechanics aid in the dramatic pressure.

I've said before (here, I believe, and elsewhere), that 5e's noncombat resolution mechanics and GMing techniques advocated for reminds me something of a mash-up of AD&D, 3.x, and 13th Age.

In AD&D and 3.x, the primary locus of play is "the adventuring day" within the framework of serial "exploration of a living, breathing world". In terms of system tech required and GMing impetus, it contrasts rather strongly with the primary locus of play being "the conflict-charged scene or situation."

One thing the latter really requires is (as outlined above) system math (protagonist build #s synched with antagonist DCs synched with the conflict resolution framework) that funnels play toward an outcome-paradigm which, in turn, produces the most drama or the most "something interesting happens" on the most consistent basis. I think the main problem I see in attempting to jury-rig 5e's objective DCs toward the 13th Age's subjective DCs (picking that system because its noncombat resolution has much more in common with it than 4e) is that it appears that the variance in baseline competency can be somewhat severe, skill to skill and PC to PC, as PCs gain in level. 13th Age has a few things working for it to keep PC competency relatively equilibrated:

1a) All classes have 8 (? don't have my books with me) Background points to spend and the pyramid expenditure system keeps them pretty closely together.

1b) The Background system is a very open-descriptor system, putting the player in a proactive position of narrative justification when deploying Backgrounds to the Ability Check system.

2) The way defenses work in the game pushes all PCs toward a MAD paradigm so disparity of bonuses, ability modifier to ability modifier, is fairly muted by proxy.

3) + 1/level across the board that somewhat attenuates any possible numerical outlier.

As such, competency is pretty bounded toward the baseline and the subjective (easy, medium, hard) DCs are pretty intuitive math-wise as the game was engineered around that paradigm.

Conversely, 5e has:

1) A proficiency system that protects niche, but in doing so it stretches characters across the competency base-line further and further as play progresses.

2) 5e very much rewards compounding your base competency by spending your ability score bonuses in your niche (eg Str for Fighters, Dex for Rogues, Int for Wizards), exacerbating the (presumably intentional) system feature of 1.

Given these things, I think deriving explicit baseline DCs from the objective DCs, that are pretty well bounded to general PC competency throughout the levels, is going to get more and more difficult as play progresses.

If, however, you could do that, I'd still have the same problems that I have with 13th Age's scheme (despite its subjective DCs). I think Jonathon Tweet and Rob Heinsoo are brilliant game designers and I think 13th Age is a great game. However, the noncombat resolution system suffers in the same way that I feel 5e's does (and I'm pretty sure the 5e devs just basically settled on going the 13th Age route in the end). It advocates for a coherent, narrative focus but the lack of clearly defined play procedures (just saying "fail forward" isn't good enough), resolution framework (that cements results in as success, success with complications, failure and/or stipulates campaign win/loss conditions) and attendant GMing principles to propel the game forward in interesting, non-GM-force-driven directions, absolutely hurts.

I will add this however, over the course of 4e's lifespan either through published material as well as the general 4e community the mechanics behind the skill challenge became more sophisticated/mature which I find a shame was not directly included within the 5e core books. The system would have certainly been richer with an optional inclusion of the complexity skill challenge mechanics, IMO.

What I think could have been interesting (could be?) for 5e is if they would have:

1) Grounded the proficiency and ability bonus inflation fairly tightly through the levels so base competency wouldn't stretch too terribly far apart at all.

2) Implement subjective DCs based on the above baseline competency.

3) Implement a unified conflict resolution framework based off the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.

4) Rewarded xp only for failures in noncombat conflict resolution.

On 3, I think it would have been cool to see something based off Tennis's "Deuce." Basically the track would look like this:
Win Disadvantage Start Advantage Lose

All conflicts would obviously begin at "Start". Stakes would be laid out at the inception of the conflict. The result of player action declarations would be narratively rendered based off of (a) intent with respect to the stakes of the conflict and (b) where they are currently on the track. Disadvantage next to Win and Advantage next to Lose would have the tendency to keep play in the "success w/ complications" and "fail forward" arena for an extended period. From an outcome-based perspective, those being the most interesting consequences of resolution and creating the most dramatic tension (rallying from the jaws of defeat and having a setback while on the cusp of victory) is precisely what you're looking for.

From an "in-world justification" perspective, you can easily just have the the mechanical setup working as the weird tendency for the world to push events toward a balance (perhaps the mojo that inexplicably keeps duece games going...and going...and going).

This is my little homebrew conflict resolution framework for 13th Age and it works pretty great. I think 5e would have potentially drawn in more gamers (of a similar disposition to me) if they would have provided such a robust noncombat conflict resolution module in the DMG (including robust GMing advice on techniques and the principles that underwrite their usage).

 

[Manbearcat]

Whatever best serves the goals of play at that moment. The default ones given to us on page 2 of the Basic Rules, paraphrased, are to have a good time and to create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play.

Hey isereth. I've seen you post this in a few different areas. Question for you if you don't mind (to generate conversation). When I see those goals of play, I think something like:

"...ummmm...I'm not sure I could have come up with something more generic, more milquetoast, more universally applicable if I spent a great deal of time and effort."

I mean "to have a good time?" And "to create an exciting, memorable story?" That strikes me as akin to someone asking a coach what their gameplan is and having the coach deadpan "to score more points than the other team." Well. Yeah.

Much more interesting and much more helpful is to dig deeper, to nail down specific play agenda, GMing principles, techniques and play procedures and contrast them with their alternatives. Then we can know why this round peg fits in this hole while this square one doesn't. And as a result, we can know, with precision, what we're trying to get out of play and work with the system rather than against it.

A system that advocates "play to find out what happens" is very different than a system that advocates "tell the players a good story." The former should push against you if you try to use GM force to railroad play toward your good story. Further, it should work with you by having robust resolution mechanics and clear, authoritative GMing principles that facilitate an agenda of emergent story. The latter will have a different setup and a different GMing ethos undewriting play procedures.

Same thing with "push play toward conflict and escalate" versus "present an objective, internally consistent fantasy world for the players to explore at their leisure."

Same thing with the GMing principles of "be a fan of the protagonists/PCs" versus "be an objective arbiter/referee."

The goals of play should authoritatively break out how system, setting, and technique work together toward realizing those goals. It should transparently speak on pacing, genre/theme expectations/constraints, player/GM authority, leveraging the off-screen and the metagame, and how the resolution mechanics/GMing techniques feedback onto the whole.

But, in truth, I think its pretty clear from all the Legend and Lore columns and all the podcasts (etc) that a non-authoritative voice (hence assuredly non-offensive) was precisely what they were looking for (unfortunately in my estimation) in their presentation of 5e. The "skip the guards and get to the fun (the 4e analogue to the Vincent Baker imperative of 'at every moment, push play toward conflict')" ripple effect.

 

[iserith]

Hey isereth. I've seen you post this in a few different areas. Question for you if you don't mind

I don't mind. What is your actual question?

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't mind. What is your actual question?

Sorry, I guess I was more or less asking for your commentary. My sense of 5e's play agenda and how I would actually be running it, from a play procedure perspective and the output of those play procedures, is informed by all that I have written above (plus my experience of running every iteration of D&D and several systems outside of D&D and extrapolating from that). Rulings Not Rules. Natural Language. GM being heavily involved in mechanical resolution. The clear drawing back from 4e. The saving throw, multiclass, and setting of DC paradigms from 3.x. The advocating of fail-forward and the ability check system itself looking very similar to 13th Age (but without any actual conflict resolution framework nor any hard-coded win/loss condition). Bounded Accuracy and internally consistent, world-premised challenges. The Concentration mechanic meant to reign in caster utility and pre-fight buffing. Ad/Disad as a low-overhead/minimal handling time tool for situation adjudication. Inspiration and Bonds/Traits/Flaws. On and on. It presents to me a game that wants to be run as sort of an AD&D 3.0 meets 13th Age.

Given that, I'm curious how the language of the Goals of Play section (instead of Rulings Not Rules et al) assists in informing the nuts and bolts of your play at the table? Do you find it helpful because you feel that its lack of advocating anything specific (thus binding) further augments the empowerment of the GM that is inherent in the system? Something else?

 

[iserith]

Sorry, I guess I was more or less asking for your commentary. My sense of 5e's play agenda and how I would actually be running it, from a play procedure perspective and the output of those play procedures, is informed by all that I have written above (plus my experience of running every iteration of D&D and several systems outside of D&D and extrapolating from that). Rulings Not Rules. Natural Language. GM being heavily involved in mechanical resolution. The clear drawing back from 4e. The saving throw, multiclass, and setting of DC paradigms from 3.x. The advocating of fail-forward and the ability check system itself looking very similar to 13th Age (but without any actual conflict resolution framework nor any hard-coded win/loss condition). Bounded Accuracy and internally consistent, world-premised challenges. The Concentration mechanic meant to reign in caster utility and pre-fight buffing. Ad/Disad as a low-overhead/minimal handling time tool for situation adjudication. Inspiration and Bonds/Traits/Flaws. On and on. It presents to me a game that wants to be run as sort of an AD&D 3.0 meets 13th Age.

Given that, I'm curious how the language of the Goals of Play section (instead of Rulings Not Rules et al) assists in informing the nuts and bolts of your play at the table? Do you find it helpful because you feel that its lack of advocating anything specific (thus binding) further augments the empowerment of the GM that is inherent in the system? Something else?

Couple of things to start:

1. I have read the rules, ran the game, played in the game. What I didn't do was design the game.

2. Respectfully, I think you're over-thinking a game made for Ages 12+.

This leads me to a question of my own: Have you run D&D 5e? Have you played it? Or is it all theory at this point?

Here's how I see it: We have a goal when we sit down to the table to have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. What constitutes those two things varies from group to group. My consistently-given advice is to hash that out before every campaign even within the same group. Once consensus is reached, we sift through the toolbox the game provides us and use the rules and options that helps us best achieve those goals.

What I don't see from this game are mandated processes and procedures to follow like in, say, Dungeon World (a game I also run, play in, and enjoy). The rules are just tools we use (or ignore) as we need to facilitate achieving the goals of play. The DMG tells us this in more than one place in so many words.

In the end, all that matters is whether we achieve those goals during a play session. So when it comes to forum arguments about game balance (for example) which tend to be centered around defensively DMing to curb player abuse of rules-legal options, I have to ask whether people have taken the time to sit down with their players and come to an agreement that abuse just isn't going to help achieve the goal of fun. It's through the lens of the goals of play that it becomes very easy to see what we need to do to make the game successful and oftentimes it's a matter of a simple discussion among the group.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Given that, I'm curious how the language of the Goals of Play section (instead of Rulings Not Rules et al) assists in informing the nuts and bolts of your play at the table?

IMXP, it serves to align play agendas under a broad group agenda. In a collaborative game with possible failure, it's important that all the players (and the DM) are on board with the idea that even when your own personal play agenda isn't being served, the overall goals of the group are being served. It stops people getting too precious about having their agenda served at all times, and allows for greater flexibility in the name of overall group delight.

It is the trump card that excuses a thousand minor annoyances and drives the game to a group experience rather than an individual experience.

Yeah, it's pretty generic and obvious to old hats, but even for trufans, arguments over rules and how one "should" play or what one prefers can detract from the overall group enjoyment. It's kind of the Brainy Smurf problem -- even if he's RIGHT, he's being insufferable about it. We are all responsible for the group's enjoyment, and the Goals of Play section highlights that.

 

[Sadras]

Conversely, 5e has
1) A proficiency system that protects niche, but in doing so it stretches characters across the competency base-line further and further as play progresses.
2) 5e very much rewards compounding your base competency by spending your ability score bonuses in your niche (eg Str for Fighters, Dex for Rogues, Int for Wizards), exacerbating the (presumably intentional) system feature of 1.
Given these things, I think deriving explicit baseline DCs from the objective DCs, that are pretty well bounded to general PC competency throughout the levels, is going to get more and more difficult as play progresses.

...(snip)...

What I think could have been interesting (could be?) for 5e is if they would have:
1) Grounded the proficiency and ability bonus inflation fairly tightly through the levels so base competency wouldn't stretch too terribly far apart at all.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're proposing an even flatter bound accuracy (at least when it comes to skill challenges)?

4) Rewarded xp only for failures in noncombat conflict resolution.

Because the success of the skill challenge would be enough, so success in skill challenges do not earn one XP at all? How does 4e deal with failures in skill challenges, do you get part of the XP allotment? I have always utilised my own XP system, (I'm a little OCD on this matter), so I'm only asking out of curiousity.

2) Implement subjective DCs based on the above baseline competency.

Ok, that makes one crowd happy, but

From an "in-world justification" perspective, you can easily just have the mechanical setup working as the weird tendency for the world to push events toward a balance (perhaps the mojo that inexplicably keeps deuce games going...and going...and going).

I'm not following the above which I believe is meant to satisfy the "illusion-of-sim crowd". The crowd preferring objective DCs enjoys a greater degree of niche protection where skill mastery matters if anyone can do anything with an equal chance of success since you recommend “push events towards a balance” then where is such a player making a meaningful choice when it comes to skills/abilities?

3) Implement a unified conflict resolution framework based off the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.
On 3, I think it would have been cool to see something based off Tennis's "Deuce." Basically the track would look like this:
Win Disadvantage Start Advantage Lose

All conflicts would obviously begin at "Start". Stakes would be laid out at the inception of the conflict. The result of player action declarations would be narratively rendered based off of (a) intent with respect to the stakes of the conflict and (b) where they are currently on the track. Disadvantage next to Win and Advantage next to Lose would have the tendency to keep play in the "success w/ complications" and "fail forward" arena for an extended period. From an outcome-based perspective, those being the most interesting consequences of resolution and creating the most dramatic tension (rallying from the jaws of defeat and having a setback while on the cusp of victory) is precisely what you're looking for.

Interesting idea, I like this.

 

[Manbearcat]

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're proposing an even flatter bound accuracy (at least when it comes to skill challenges)?

Yup.

Because the success of the skill challenge would be enough, so success in skill challenges do not earn one XP at all? How does 4e deal with failures in skill challenges, do you get part of the XP allotment? I have always utilised my own XP system, (I'm a little OCD on this matter), so I'm only asking out of curiousity.

You get full xp whether you succeed or fail. The only thing on the line is what is at stake in the fiction.

Ok, that makes one crowd happy, but

Yup. There is always a rub.

I'm not following the above which I believe is meant to satisfy the "illusion-of-sim crowd". The crowd preferring objective DCs enjoys a greater degree of niche protection where skill mastery matters if anyone can do anything with an equal chance of success since you recommend “push events towards a balance” then where is such a player making a meaningful choice when it comes to skills/abilities?

In such a case there is still a disparity between proficient and non-proficient and natural affinity and no natural affinity (and a greater disparity when the two are compounded). Its just that there is disparity moves a step closer to parity.

Interesting idea, I like this.

I found that it works pretty well as a unified noncombat conflict resolution scheme in 13th Age and it did the trick well enough when I used it during the playtest and the one-off I ran of Basic 5e. Disadvantage and Advantage is a solid, elegant mechanic. It achieved the sought dramatic momentum and codified campaign wins/losses. Protagonizing the PCs comes in figuring out correct subject DCs as bonuses accrue. Awarding xp only for failure reduces the tension between gamist interests and narrativist interests, relieving the inclination of players toward the feedback loop of win at all cost to progress their PC. This leads to a higher likelihood of thematic, heroic risk-taking in play.

This leads me to a question of my own: Have you run D&D 5e? Have you played it? Or is it all theory at this point?

I ran a one-off and some combats/noncombat scenes for each of the playtest iterations. Further, I ran a 4 hour session of the Basic set where we picked an old session and took it from the top to see what would come out of it with 5e.

The thing is, it doesn't matter even if I would have just skimmed the rules. I have GMed so much in these last 30 years, GMed so many varying systems and understand the nuance of the practice to such a degree that I can look at a set of rules and easily extrapolate what kind of play it is trying to produce, what type of play it will actually produce, and how it expects to get there (from system procedures to GMing principles and techniques). The other day I estimated how much TSR D&D I've run. I was shocked. I have run somewhere in the vicinity of ~ 5500 - 6000 hours of it. That is almost 2/3 of a friggin year! I have run perhaps a 1/3 of that much in 3.x.

When I read the design articles that Mearls was putting out, when I listened to his podcasts, when I listened to the refrains that harkened back to the AD&D 2e culture that was so metagame averse...I was certain we were going to see a very TSResque 5e. As the playtest began, it started to not seem that way. However, as it progressed and evolved through the packets towards its final product, I was certain that this was basically AD&D 3e. And sure enough, when it finally came out, it looked like AD&D + 3e + a smattering of 13th Age. And when I ran it, that is exactly what it was.

Here's how I see it: We have a goal when we sit down to the table to have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story as a result of play. What constitutes those two things varies from group to group. My consistently-given advice is to hash that out before every campaign even within the same group. Once consensus is reached, we sift through the toolbox the game provides us and use the rules and options that helps us best achieve those goals.

What I don't see from this game are mandated processes and procedures to follow like in, say, Dungeon World (a game I also run, play in, and enjoy). The rules are just tools we use (or ignore) as we need to facilitate achieving the goals of play. The DMG tells us this in more than one place in so many words.

In the end, all that matters is whether we achieve those goals during a play session. So when it comes to forum arguments about game balance (for example) which tend to be centered around defensively DMing to curb player abuse of rules-legal options, I have to ask whether people have taken the time to sit down with their players and come to an agreement that abuse just isn't going to help achieve the goal of fun. It's through the lens of the goals of play that it becomes very easy to see what we need to do to make the game successful and oftentimes it's a matter of a simple discussion among the group.

That is all true enough. However, I've found that my interests have honed significantly as the years have gone by. In order to get those very specific experiences, I want an unabashedly transparent system that says precisely what its trying to do and is tightly focused on doing it. For most games (save Cthulu or Dread), I don't want to be juggling dozens of balls in the air. I certainly don't want the conflict of interest that comes with being heavily involved with establishing/interpreting the resolution mechanics in-situ and "being a fan of the PCs" and simultaneously bearing the responsibility of being the primary facilitator of fun/story (this tempts and often leads to GM force and illusionism). I want very specified mental overhead and I want minimal table handling time because the mechanics are elegant and intuitive. I just want to frame thematic scenes, push back hard against my players' thematic interests, follow clear play procedures and find out what comes out of it.

IMXP, it serves to align play agendas under a broad group agenda. In a collaborative game with possible failure, it's important that all the players (and the DM) are on board with the idea that even when your own personal play agenda isn't being served, the overall goals of the group are being served. It stops people getting too precious about having their agenda served at all times, and allows for greater flexibility in the name of overall group delight.

It is the trump card that excuses a thousand minor annoyances and drives the game to a group experience rather than an individual experience.

Yeah, it's pretty generic and obvious to old hats, but even for trufans, arguments over rules and how one "should" play or what one prefers can detract from the overall group enjoyment. It's kind of the Brainy Smurf problem -- even if he's RIGHT, he's being insufferable about it. We are all responsible for the group's enjoyment, and the Goals of Play section highlights that.

This goes back to the adage (you may not be familiar with it) that "there is no such thing as a bad day on the links." You're with your buddies. Its a beautiful day with greenery everywhere. Wonderful, right?

Not necessarily. If you love playing golf, expect to play well, and are looking for that beautiful feel in your hands/body of flushing shot after shot (eg have a specific experience)...and you're shanking shots left and right and slowing up play for your pals and the people behind you...its 4 hours (or more) of hell. And you've just paid 30 dollars to do it.

There are enough systems out there and enough competing leisure activities where people don't have to settle for average or "just barely enough". Its not a necessity that people tolerate slow or uninteresting game sessions for the sake of the prospect that the great one down the line will be all the better by comparison.

If someone is just looking to hang out with pals and don't give a crap what you do. That is all well and good. The buy-in becomes minimal at "hang out with pals, yuk it up, etc." The actual minutiae and nuance of the TTRPGing experience becomes mostly or wholly irrelevant. However, if you're looking for experience x and you get experience x - 2 or experience y, you're going to have an issue if experience x is actually out there, waiting to be had...or if experience x isn't out there but experience n is and its better than x - 2 or y.

I think, at best, a ruleset that purports to being designed around the premise of reproducing the feel of experience x, y, and n isn't going to be capable of producing them all or, at best, can produce them all at - 1 (or so). I've always felt that way, the moment that they announced the design goals. I think 5e produces a better AD&D (lets say x + 2), produces a better or worse 3.x depending on what you're looking for (if you think LFQW, brutally heavy mechanics - PC side and resolution-side, and brutal GM prep is a feature...then you're going to be disappointed with 5e). However, it comes nowhere near reproducing 4e or Dungeon World. And while it does 13th Age almost exactly from a noncombat resolution side, the two are dramatically different elsewhere (especially combat).

 

[I'm A Banana]

This goes back to the adage (you may not be familiar with it) that "there is no such thing as a bad day on the links." You're with your buddies. Its a beautiful day with greenery everywhere. Wonderful, right?

Not necessarily. If you love playing golf, expect to play well, and are looking for that beautiful feel in your hands/body of flushing shot after shot (eg have a specific experience)...and you're shanking shots left and right and slowing up play for your pals and the people behind you...its 4 hours (or more) of hell. And you've just paid 30 dollars to do it.

There's the idea of "fun failure" -- even someone who has an off day or who can't get what they want still wants to come back, because they might get it next time. In a game like golf that involves some skill, the idea is that you can have an off day, but you can also improve from there. Go back and try again. In a game like D&D that's less skill-based, the idea is that you can have a character die or sit through a fight that you're not that interested in because the experience is enjoyable to repeat regardless. It's only at the extreme ends of the curve (when every day is an off day, when all your characters die in their first fight, when you're playing a combat-heavy grindfest) where you'd need to consider more fundamental changes than "show up next time and it'll be different." It's still an enjoyable experience when you don't get what you want.

And this plays into something I might be a bit philosophical about, but if one's sense of personal enjoyment is fragile enough to be entirely broken by an off day or two or a few combat-heavy D&D sessions, that person is kind of being a precious little princess about their own expectations. In the world of athletics, dealing with times that you suck is going to be inevitable - it's part of what you sign up for when you play. No one expects you to be happy about it, but everyone expects you to get over it and get back in the game. In D&D, there will be times when you also fail, and there will be times when you don't get the precise play experience you desire. It's part of what you sign up for when you're playing with other people and the game involves chance. No one expects you to be delighted at the combat-heavy session you're not that into, but they do expect you to not have a tantrum over it and to still show up the next session (and, if it goes on for a while, to have a civil talk with the DM about it).

So yeah, have an off day, get frustrated, make some compromises, but if that ruins the whole game for you, maybe you want to look into what you're really asking for from the game. If you want to do something where you'll never have an off day or have to be a little uninspired for a moment, you're not looking for a social game with the possibility of failure -- you just can't handle it.

There are enough systems out there and enough competing leisure activities where people don't have to settle for average or "just barely enough". Its not a necessity that people tolerate slow or uninteresting game sessions for the sake of the prospect that the great one down the line will be all the better by comparison.

It's not a necessity, but the people who refuse to tolerate that compromise aren't people I'd play games with -- or probably do much socially with. In much the same way that the guy who lost his cool and pouted about his awful golf game all day wouldn't be someone I'd play golf with much. Every activity with other human beings is going to involve some measure of compromise, and every activity involving some chance of failure is going to have you fail sometimes, and if that's not a price you're willing to sometimes pay, you should probably not do much involving other people or a chance of failure for fun. At the very least, it's not going to be very fun for you.

If someone is just looking to hang out with pals and don't give a crap what you do. That is all well and good. The buy-in becomes minimal at "hang out with pals, yuk it up, etc." The actual minutiae and nuance of the TTRPGing experience becomes mostly or wholly irrelevant. However, if you're looking for experience x and you get experience x - 2 or experience y, you're going to have an issue if experience x is actually out there, waiting to be had...or if experience x isn't out there but experience n is and its better than x - 2 or y.

True, but this is part of why that bit is in there, aligning everyone's X to be the same. The goal of the game is to have fun as a group, and if you're not having fun as a group, you're not doing it right. So be clear about what is fun for you, and allow others to have fun, too. And if you can't delight in others having fun, maybe a game with the goal to "have fun as a player" is more up your alley?

I think, at best, a ruleset that purports to being designed around the premise of reproducing the feel of experience x, y, and n isn't going to be capable of producing them all or, at best, can produce them all at - 1 (or so). I've always felt that way, the moment that they announced the design goals. I think 5e produces a better AD&D (lets say x + 2), produces a better or worse 3.x depending on what you're looking for (if you think LFQW, brutally heavy mechanics - PC side and resolution-side, and brutal GM prep is a feature...then you're going to be disappointed with 5e). However, it comes nowhere near reproducing 4e or Dungeon World. And while it does 13th Age almost exactly from a noncombat resolution side, the two are dramatically different elsewhere (especially combat).

For me, I'd question how important those precise feels are. For example, something both 3e folks and 4e folks might not find in 5e are the heavy mechanics they're used to. If that helps the newbie player across the table have fun and contribute to the game, does that add to the group's overall fun even if you'd prefer more mechanical grist? For many of my tables (which tend to have a lot of newbies), the answer is a resounding OH GOD YES. Having those people show up and grok the game and have fun playing is a HUGE gain that I'd have trouble achieving in 4e or 3e, even if some of the more experienced folks miss their 5-foot-steps and 101 possible feats. The question is on what is fun as a group, not just for the individual. My gearhead players might grouse about 5e's "limited options," but they get to play it next to enthusiastic, creative new players who dig the simplicity, and aren't so precious about their diverse option array that they can't have fun with the game as it is.

For a table mostly made up of those gearheads, the calculus is different, of course -- 5e might not please their group as it is now (I think 5e could stand to have a more "advanced," rules-heavy option for those tables). If 5e doesn't make their group have fun, 5e isn't the right game for them, because they wouldn't be able to meet the game's goals.

 

[pemerton]

How does 4e deal with failures in skill challenges, do you get part of the XP allotment?

Adding to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s reply: as the system was originally written (in the DMG) XP were awarded for success only.

One of the many "stealth errata" in Essentials was to award XP regardless of success or failure.

This is a further illustration of the function of XP in 4e: they are not a reward for playing well; they are a pacing device. Roughly speaking, every hour of play in a group of 5 players and 1 GM (the system default) earns 1/12 of a level's worth of XP, provided that the play is genuinely play: ie you are engaged in encounters (combat or non-combat), are achieving goals (quest XP) or are engaged in "free roleplaying" that actually drives the game forward (the DMG2 has the rules for XP for free roleplay).

Hence, the game automatically propels the PCs through the "story of D&D", from 1st level characters fighting goblins and kobolds, to 30th level demigods confronting Orcus et al. All the winning and losing is located in the story, not in the mechanical aspects of PC development. In that (relatively narrow) respect 4e has more in common with Classic Traveller than with Gygaxian D&D.

people who refuse to tolerate that compromise aren't people I'd play games with

There is a flip side to that, though - if everyone is very easy-going about which system they play, why not play this other system that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] thinks is more fun? If the choice of system isn't going to be completely random or arbitrary than presumably considerations of what is enjoyable are a relevant consideration.

For many RPGers D&D solves the co-ordination problem of finding a game that everyone can agree on, but as I read it the point Manbearcat is making is that, for him and his friends, other superior points of convergence are available.

You seem to be implying that that is precious, but I don't think it's precious at all. Presumably when you go to the movies with your friends you don't just choose a film and a cinema at random. Even though the main point is to have fun seeing a film together, presumably you nevertheless look for a film that is going to be enjoyable for you all.