Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5965860" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I think in Neonchameleon's case (and others... S'mon, maybe?), they look at the task ("climb a mundane tree"), gauge who should be able to do it ("level 1"), and then decide how easy or hard that should be ("moderate"). So, climbing a tree would be a moderate level 1 DC skill check.This goes on to apply as necessary to any skill that doesn't have definitive rules already (like jump distance) for the rest of the campaign.This makes sense to me. Reliable DCs allow players to reliably gauge their skill against the DC, and make informed decisions on whether or not they're able to shape the story reliably.Can I ask how the skill system that is essentially decided by DM fiat emphasizes player agency more than, say, BW's approach? I'm curious as to your thoughts on it.Well, I've got a couple thoughts on this. First, I do see where you're coming from, and see the appeal if that's a goal of yours. However, couldn't "objective" DCs still allow for gonzo play (something similar to how Mutants and Masterminds, a superhero RPG, gives you reliable abilities that are definitely more gonzo in nature)?And, secondly, can't you have a good chart for "stunts" or "improvised actions" that use the "objective" DCs as a guideline for the rest of play?Yes, and I know of your like of this sort of play. I was talking to Tony about the systems from 4e that 5e could draw on, and I don't believe that it has a strong non-combat system when it comes to giving players reliable control over shaping the story.That is, in combat, we know exactly how far we can move, what powers we can reliably attempt (or perform, with damage+condition on a miss), how we can restore our health, how we stabilize if we're dying, etc. Everything is laid out reliably in front of us, and we know how the rules play out 95% of the time, and thus can plan around that knowledge to shape the story.This seemingly falls apart in the non-combat arena, where people are still asking "can I do this?" and "what's the DC?" While that's a fine style to have, it doesn't seem like it's giving the players great control over the story unless the DM gives his permission. From your other thread:In this situation, the player is still saying "can I do this?" and you, as DM, get to say yes or no (this doesn't strike me as strong player agency). Then, you set the DC (again, he doesn't know what this will be until the DM decides, so this doesn't strike me as strong player agency either).Again, I'm okay with this style of play. I can play in a rules-light game and enjoy myself. I see the upsides to having rules be light, and for the DM to make decisions like this. However, I don't think that that your example, above, is an especially good system for enabling strong player agency within the game. Nor do I think a rules-light approach is necessary to be able to frame scenes in an interesting way (much like it isn't necessary in combats, where players have the most reliable control of their characters' abilities).My comment was that when it comes to enabling players to perform non-combat actions, I don't think 5e has a strong base to draw from in any edition of D&D, including 4e. I think 3.X might be the closest to my preferred style (in that it has the most "objective" DCs listed; this is not a comment on those DCs, the skill system getting out of hand and bonuses getting too high, incompetence because you didn't invest, spells bypassing things, etc.). Your preferred approach is different (more inspired by Burning Wheel), and that's fine.Whatever path 5e takes, I just want players to have reliable abilities that they can use outside of combat that aren't strongly influenced from the beginning by the DM. Can DMs say "things are different [here, now, etc.]"? I would hope so. But, I want that solid, reliable base for players to be able to draw from, to give them that reliable control over the story. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification