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

[billd91]

Again, I think that is the point though. The 5e devs furiously sought to avoid "skip the guards and get to the fun!" They so deeply wanted to not exclude any playstyle or offend any sensibilities that they ended up saying something so inconsequential, so uncontroversial that they effectively told a starving man to eat some food.

The number of times I've seen discussions on messageboards or face-to-face games in which it was clear that at least a subset of the players weren't having fun make it clear to me that this isn't just milquetoast or inconsequential. Sometimes things that should be obvious really do need to be stated and more than once.

 

[LostSoul]

What billd91 and Kamikaze Midget said.

There's also a lot of Forge waffle being cited in this discussion and in my experience things go south when that happens, so I'm going to bow out of this particular conversation before it does. Thanks for the discussion!

That's a shame; I have trouble wrapping my head around that point of view so I like to hear more about it.

One of the other values I see for rules is that they add some texture to the world: spells are cast like this, orcs are like that, fighters can do these things, etc. It satisfies the "Who's stronger, Wolverine or Spider-Man" question. This extends into treasure tables, random encounter tables, and all those neat tables the 5E DMG has. Even if the resolution system is subordinate to the Goals of Play, the other rules make the game world come alive.

(Though you don't need to do that in order to make the game world come alive.)

Anyway. I'm designing my own game, only slightly based on 4E at this point. I'll sblock it because it's kind of a tangent.

[sblock=Using rules]One of the things I wanted to do was to make sure that the player's choices would change the setting. I didn't want the players to have to make a concious decision when playing to change the world - I wanted them to focus on typical D&D play: going into dungeons, defeating traps & monsters, interacting with tricks, getting loot; generally, just adventuring. I didn't want to have to determine, as DM, how much the PC's actions changed the world and in which way - part of it is being lazy, part of it is wanting to be impartial, and part of it is wanting to be surprised.

What I did was create a "cycle of play" where the PC's actions would naturally and organically change the setting, a reason for the PCs (and their players) to care about those changes, and a way for the information about how the setting changed to be relayed back to the PCs. This came to a head during last weekend's game: the PC's activities consisted mainly of adventuring in a nearby dungeon, and in the course of doing so they founded a new settlement, saw another grow and their position there change from strangers to leaders, and one NPC organization gain power while another was sent into turmoil.

The nice thing about it, from my perspective, was that none of us playing the game had to focus on those things: they just seemed to happen as a result of playing the game and following the rules and procedures for play.[/sblock]

 

[Bawylie]

Stated up front and out loud. Whenever I have a new player, I let them know the basics of how I do things and what I expect from them - also that we are working together to have a fun time. I find it's easier on people when the expectations are given bc they worry less about whether or not they're "doing it right."

 

[pemerton]

KM, I've somewhat lost track of your point. You began by suggesting to [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] that he is being precious in not wanting to play 5e. But now you're going off on all sorts of conjectural detours which seem not to connect to the reasons that he gave.

Looking for and exploiting <snippage> ruins the fun for others at the table

<snip>

Telling a memorable story is a goal of 5e play, so presumably the 5e system will tell a memorable story by default

<snip>

Saying that this is one of the goals of D&D5e play makes it clear that, for instance, if what you are seeking is a detailed tactical skirmish game, D&D isn't going to meet those goals. Or if you're looking for a robust world-building game, D&D isn't going to be what you're looking for. Or if you want a game of PVP competition, that's not D&D 's bag. But D&D in 5e is designed to provide an interesting story.

I think it's pretty clear from his posts upthread what [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is interested in.

He has said nothing about exploiting rules loopholes.

He has said nothing about prioritising "tactical combat".

He has said nothing to suggest that his conception of "memorable stories" is confined to Top Hat and Follow the Fleet.

He has talked about 4e, DungeonWorld, Marvel Heroic RP, 13th Age and (I think) Dogs in the Vineyard, and has said that all these systems except 13th Age drive play towards the creation of memorable stories in a way that (he feels) 5e does not. And he has explained why he thinks that is: all those systems have what he has called "closed scene resolution" with "subjective DCs". Whereas 5e, like 13th Age, has no non-combat closed scene resolution, so finality in non-combat conflict resolution is ultimately dependent upon mechanically unconstrained GM decision-making; and "objective" DCs mean that there is no mechanically built-in guarantee of dramatic pacing.

I would understand a reply that explained how, in fact, 5e's design does support memorable stories without the sort of GM decision-making which Manbearcat, as a GM, wishes to eschew.

But I am really not following this detour through criticisms of a GM as precious because he doesn't want to have to (as he sees it) fiat his players into memorable stories.

This is part of why it's good to explore other RPG systems

I'm now doubly confused. Manbearcat clearly has explored other RPG systems. It is because of his familiarity with the GMing approach that other systems support that he is expressing doubts about the ability of 5e to deliver memorable stories (other than in the most generic sense of a fun RPG experience).

I am still not seeing any evidence of anyone being precious.

 

[Manbearcat]

He has talked about 4e, DungeonWorld, Marvel Heroic RP, 13th Age and (I think) Dogs in the Vineyard, and has said that all these systems except 13th Age drive play towards the creation of memorable stories in a way that (he feels) 5e does not. And he has explained why he thinks that is: all those systems have what he has called "closed scene resolution" with "subjective DCs". Whereas 5e, like 13th Age, has no non-combat closed scene resolution, so finality in non-combat conflict resolution is ultimately dependent upon mechanically unconstrained GM decision-making; and "objective" DCs mean that there is no mechanically built-in guarantee of dramatic pacing.

I would understand a reply that explained how, in fact, 5e's design does support memorable stories without the sort of GM decision-making which Manbearcat, as a GM, wishes to eschew.

But I am really not following this detour through criticisms of a GM as precious because he doesn't want to have to (as he sees it) fiat his players into memorable stories.

The whole post is 100 % on the money as an encapsulation of my posts and regarding the position I take here.

I rarely speak of PC build complexity, or anything of the like, when I speak of my GMing preferences. If I advocate in that arena, it is (a) solely for the players' preferences for which I GM and (b) because certain PC build features tightly focus genre or thematic interests and, as a result, naturally funnel play toward what we're interested in. I'm not a fan of complex or vague rules GM-side. I'd like to offload all of the mental overhead that I'm not interested in (which therefore distracts me from honing in on the things I want to spend all of my mental acuity on so that it produces the best game experience) onto the system. In all the systems that I've read and played, I've only seen that accomplished through focused, clear GMing advice on best practices and robust action resolution mechanics that, together, always lead to interesting and dramatic outcomes.

I've said many-times-over that I don't want to be too heavily steeped in the action resolution mechanics, from management to interpretation. Needlessly complex systems or systems that regularly require the interpretation of the resolution mechanics (and the things that interface with them) proportionally affect table handling time, the mental overhead I have to spend on them, and place me in a position where my interests are at conflict. (1) Being a fan of the PCs (2) while aiming for a conflict-charged game that produces dramatic outcomes, (3) while simultaneously attempting to maintain the status of an impartial arbiter becomes untenable at some point when you are constantly involved in the nuts and bolts of the game's resolution mechanics.

The number of times I've seen discussions on messageboards or face-to-face games in which it was clear that at least a subset of the players weren't having fun make it clear to me that this isn't just milquetoast or inconsequential. Sometimes things that should be obvious really do need to be stated and more than once.

You'll get no disagreement from me on this. In fact, you'll get agreement with me on this in every aspect of life. However, where I'm coming from is that it must be supplementary to, not a replacement for, focused, clear GMing advice. Best practices on how to achieve said fun. What target the game or a specific system component or technique is aiming for. Copious designer notes (a la 13th Age) on their intent behind this or that and what it is supposed to produce in play.

In other words, a strong, clear voice. Or strong, clear voices (again, like 13th Age where Tweet and Heinsoo humorously joust back and forth on various things).

 

[billd91]

Copious designer notes (a la 13th Age) on their intent behind this or that and what it is supposed to produce in play.

No argument there. I've been advocating more of those for years. But then, I have more than a few issues of The General and quite a few Avalon Hill games in my library, so I'm an old timer fan of designer notes, series replay, and other forms of annotated examples of play.

 

[Manbearcat]

One other thing on the goals of play for an RPG (whether or not anyone is interested in continuing the discussion). The communicating of them isn't just important for the players to be able to understand what this or that game is all about and follow through with a coherent play experience. Prologue to that is the designers actually identifying them and understanding them so they can actually focus on creating a system that consistently produces said coherent play experience. Whether the gameplay is supposed to be about "test your beliefs in a crucible of fantasy conflict" or "survive a haunted house/warehouse/etc which is filled with murderous ghosts" or "survive a monster-infested/trap-laden dungeon by your wits and skill, loot the treasure and GTFO" or "at what price, power (?)" or "stand between God's law and the best intentions of the week" or "heroic adventurers saving towns/kingdoms/the world from nefarious villains and marauding monsters" or "find out what happens when a caper goes wrong", there should be design intent and focused mechanical infrastructure that funnels play inexorably toward this (when run naturally/correctly).

Once that is done, it would be nice (its not crucial, but it is certainly valuable) if it is then articulated to the players. Otherwise, you may end up with frustrated players when they try to force a Dungeon World experience out of Runequest or a Dread experience out of Murderous Ghosts...or an AD&D 2e experience out of 4e. Every one of those games, and every leisure experience in the world, seeks "fun", "enjoyment", or "satisfaction", generically, as the overriding impetus to get together and engage in the first place. However, if Bob wants "to bargain with demons and see if he can retain his humanity while gaining the power to do x" and Harry wants "to exorcise demons as he metes out justice to sinners or dies while trying", they are wanting very different things out of their play experiences. And the system should support them and be clear about how it is doing so.

For whatever reason (I have plenty of thoughts on this but I'm not going to get into it), D&D players seem to have an aversion to tight, focused design and an associated transparent play goal. Surely it has something to do with the "badwrongfun" or "you can't win at D&D" or "you only win at D&D if you're having fun" cultural meme that has now endured decades. Nonetheless, I don't think that aversion is particularly helpful for prospective RPG players as it can easily lead to frustration, disinterest, and dismissal.