D&D 5E D&D compared to Bespoke Genre TTRPGs

[doctorbadwolf]

If a Tree is a DC 10 to climb... it's a DC 10 to climb regardless of level. Or another way to look at it is that they define "easy" as a 50% chance for Joe average to successfully do it.

Yep. And, by design, a rogue with expertise in athletics will be incapable of failing that check pretty quickly, and most proficient PCs will be at high level. Meanwhile, also by design, that DC 10 will never get easier for a non-proficient character that doesn’t use strength.

Its...how it’s meant to work. Acting like there is no guidance when there clearly is, is really odd. It’s just guidance to get a result some folks don’t prefer.

Also the DC's aren't per the average joe, that's the gm deciding one of the unfilled variables.

No. The average Joe has 10s in their stats and no proficiency, thus the DCs are set in relation to that. The DCs are based on DC 10 being 50/50 for the average Joe.

By pretending this isn't true, and trying to validate that by leaving a few, never to be tested, bonuses at a low value 5e is simply presenting the whole thing badly.

No, the DCs are set for low level characters, and by leveling you get higher and higher success rate. This is a good thing. DC 10 is 50/50 for the average Joe. That’s the baseline. A level one character with proficiency is better, and prof+ability is even better. 11 levels later and your not worried about DC 10 most of the time, and the rogue can’t fail that DC as long as they’re proficient.

 

[Campbell]

There is no meaningful difference between a rules issue and a social contract issue. It's just a matter of formality at that point. Where our shared understanding of how the game is supposed to work comes from does not really matter. All that matters is what that shared understanding is. This is what System Matters has been all about from the very beginning. It's about the system in play. System does not equal text.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

See this isn't how I interpret that... again it seems to imply that in order for a roll to take place a task must have a success and failure state... that means it should be clear to player and GM what those two things are.

OK, this is an interesting point of discussion.

Ability Check: A test to see whether a character succeeds at a task that he or she has decided to attempt

The DMG defines what a check represents... specifically the chance to succeed or fail at a single task. Which in turn implies that any action being rolled for should be framed as a single discrete task that has success state and a failure state.

I simply take this to mean that skill checks must literally map to a single character action taken in the fiction. So a player has to say something like "I try to sneak past the guard at the entrance." and that must reference an entrance and a guard already established in the fiction, and that this specific action, in and of itself, if it has a failure state and a success state, then the GM may call for an ability check (presumably a DEX check modified by Stealth proficiency).

There is really no explanation of what is meant by these states existing. Now, maybe the actual DMG text is more informative, but from what you wrote I don't know that the GM is obligated to explain what those states are to the player, or even to define them at all beyond determining that some sort of distinctly different resulting fiction state could be presented, in principle. It doesn't really say that the GM is obliged to actually follow through with any specific fictional change (though I think it is fair to assume).

So, the important part to me is the last phrase there, a single discrete task, which modifies the fiction in one of two ways, one for failure, and one for success. What it SEEMS TO IMPLY is that ability checks don't cover a more abstract case, where maybe failure simply increments a tally that might aggregate failures and trigger some consequence at some point not directly related to the specific action being taken NOW. It seems to direct GMs to take each check in isolation as it comes and treat it as a discrete thing without (fictional situation aside) any consideration of context. Taken as a rule it would seem to outlaw any sort of SC-like, or Clock-like process.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The relation of an easy DC to a character with a 10 attribute being tested and no bonus is stated right there on the page. Not sure what else to say... Oh and to handle the situations above... well look over the guidelines for ability checks... they aren't inherent to the actual tree which is a DC 10 to climb or an easy tree to climb.

Yep. I don’t recall if it’s the RAW, but I just apply advantage or disadvantage. The DC stays the same unless the circumstance really changes the activity dramatically. A mossy tree in a hard rain (so effectively a slimy tree) might be a DC15, but a normal tree in the rain is just the tree’s normal DC with disadvantage.

 

[Imaro]

Well, wait a minute, DCs themselves, and CR/Monster level are of course not 'relative' in the sense that they slot into the mechanics in a specific way that doesn't vary. They are RELATIVE INDICATORS however. A 5th level monster is on par to fight a level 5 PC in 4e parlance, or you use CR numbers in 5e (why not level numbers, this is really annoying, but whatever, there's a table someplace that translates between the two).

That's not relative... they are objectively DC 10 and CR 10 what's relative is how powerful/capable a particular PC is at handling what is an easy task or a CR 10 monster.

So, the problem is with the labels on the DCs. A DC of 20 is likely to be pretty hard FOR A LEVEL ONE PC. For a level 20 PC, to use an extreme, it is going to be MUCH easier in large number of cases (and since the guy with the best bonus on your team will take on that DC, for practical purposes the DC is trivial at level 20). So the absolute labeling of that DC as 'hard' is at best misleading. It isn't hard for a high level party! Nor is DC 30 'impossible', nor perhaps even that close to impossible. By pretending this isn't true, and trying to validate that by leaving a few, never to be tested, bonuses at a low value 5e is simply presenting the whole thing badly.

I... this argument is so pedantic that I'm not even sure I want to go down this rabbit hole... Again they are objective... it is on average an easy task or as they defined it in the text easy = 50% chance for someone with an attribute of 10 and no bonuses to have a roughly 50% chance at success... it is literally defined right there in the text. Whatever you've posted above doesn't matter because the book makes clear what is meant by easy/DC 10.

Also you're making some generalizations about 5e that aren't true... you take that 20th level PC who is not proficient in the skill needed and has no attribute bonus and guess what... it's nowhere near easy for him to accomplish a DC 20, it's nigh impossible. That's why having an objective DC vs. a relative one based on level makes more sense in the context of the game. Saying someting is easy for a level 20 character doesn't make sense because it won't hold for all level 20 characters.

If the world is described literally by assigning the DCs in this table, indiscriminately, then low level PCs are always facing the possibility of these very high DCs. The rules don't ask for the GM to explain the DC before a check is made. Even if it did, that just means you may well run into things your GM is effectively saying you shouldn't try. Likewise it is likely that for high level PCs most things are supposed to be trivially easy (anything below DC20 I imagine). It isn't well-thought-out. It is particularly problematic if you want to actually do anything more sophisticated with ability checks and task resolution than "The GM simply uses them like salt to add flavor" which is mechanically where they're at.

Yes they do face the possibility not sure why they wouldn't... should their not be difficult things in the world that are hard to succeed at? Reading this I'm wondering if you know how proficiency/level/attribute interact in D&D 5e, if not I can quickly describe the skill system so we can have a clearer conversation because the conclusions you are drawing seem to be from a misunderstanding of how proficiency/level interact.

I get that some people will figure out how to ACTUALLY use DCs well themselves, but sheesh.

I think you should actually read up on the skill system in 5e and things might become a bit clearer.

 

[Imaro]

Yep. I don’t recall if it’s the RAW, but I just apply advantage or disadvantage. The DC stays the same unless the circumstance really changes the activity dramatically. A mossy tree in a hard rain (so effectively a slimy tree) might be a DC15, but a normal tree in the rain is just the tree’s normal DC with disadvantage.

The post of guidelines form the DMG I put in the thread actually addresses this in the section on when to give advantage or disadvantage.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You're assuming more stealth than you'd get if the village is aware that they live near giant country or raids are possible. Even without that one of the evolutionary advantages for teenagers going to bed late and adults waking up early is that there is always likely to be someone awake. This has been confirmed by a study of a tribe of 30 having no time when there wasn't someone awake.

Who's talking about "self organizing"? The task isn't complex when someone's yelling "There's a giant! Shoot it!" The big problem is working out what to do. This in this case has a simple problem that doesn't require much self organizing (nothing remotely as complex as a bucket chain) and someone's awake, has worked out what's going on, and should have taken charge.

The thing is shooting something to beat it down is not something that really requires much organisation. It's not remotely forming a bucket chain or fighting in formation. Everyone can pitch in in their own time and at their own pace as long as they have ranged weapons. Even a few goblins would be much more of a danger in a night attack - they aren't a huge target, they are a lot stealthier, they can cause confusion, and they are hard to focus fire.

From the person who was actually awake yelling "Giant attack! North End! Shoot it!" it's pretty easy. Goblins are a much harder problem to work out. They're small, sneaky, can be in multiple places at once, and you want to organise to fight them or you get shanked from multiple sides almost in silence. Meanwhile even a 10' giant is taller than most village houses and a 16' giant towers over them so can be seen and shot from most places.

Given that there is a significant difference between being 10' tall and being 16' tall then there's a bit of a difference; single story buildings provide significant cover to it. The AC3 of a hill giant in crude hides is not nice for villagers with THAC0 20 - meaning its 55hp go way further than the 105 of the 5e equivalent.

More importantly the skills of the villagers are different in different editions. In the 5e example with its bounded accuracy I've assumed sling proficiency for my villagers (and it doesn't really matter anyway with the AC of the giant). Slings are a simple weapon - and a weapon both the wizard and the sorcerer are proficient in in 5e. With 5e rules I therefore consider it expected that villagers on the frontier will be. In 3.X and in AD&D weapon proficiencies are much tighter; in 3.5 the experts will be proficient with slings but the commoners almost certainly won't while in AD&D it's far from clear that a sling or bow is in the top two weapons most level 0 villagers should be proficient with; I'd expect the herdsmen to mostly have slings and the huntsmen to mostly have bows. But there are also self defence weapons like staffs or daggers, agricultural implements like scythes, and militia weapons competing for the slots. If our villagers aren't proficient with ranged weapons then it's a whole different ball game and going to get messy.

If you go in at night as a giant in 5e you've at least a 10% chance of getting killed by a village.

We will have to agree to disagree. I think you drastically overestimate how easy it is for people to respond to a situation of this type effectively. A few of your villagers might do so, but I don't think they would mount an effective resistance. Not before the giant had a few rounds to run rampant and then exit stage right. Experience a few real crisis emergency situations, you will find out for yourself. Even experienced military units which are well-armed and have trained extensively, and are encamped well have repeatedly throughout history melted instantly and offered no effective resistance in cases of surprise attacks, even from greatly inferior forces. An ordinary village suddenly assaulted by a rampaging giant? Yeah, there's a decent chance they can drive it off, but I'd give 50/50 odds that the villagers end up sleeping in the woods and coming back in the morning to see what's left. Anyway, clearly only a rather silly giant would attack on its own, but that's a whole other discussion...

 

[Imaro]

If you stated the DC, the effect of a success and the consequences of a failure, sure, there is a social contrac — that sounds like a solid resolution system.

Well in your original example you stated the rules, outcome of success and structure of the game... then disregarded it totally. So I'm lost on what point you were making with that example if you agree?

But the important word here is "if". From what I've seen, naming DC before the roll is rare. Naming consequences and effect? Almost hever happens.

And it's still system issue. The rules don't require you to clearly state any of that.

Oh, ok so we aren't talking about the post you made...we're talking 5e?? Let me put it this way all systems have things that aren't explicitly called out as something the players should have access to but maybe they should. As an example do players of BitD know what the effect is the GM sets? If so can you tell me where in the rulebook it states that because I haven't been able to find it.

Sure, no rule can police itself, but rule can make sure that the other can detect if it was broken. When I roll 6 in Blades, I know that's a success with limited/standard/great effect (depending on what was negotiated before I even touched the dice) and can easily say, whether the outcome falls into the relevant category. If I roll 1, or 2, or 3, I reliably know that I should be prepared for trouble (how bad these troubles are is, again, determined by position even before I touched the dice).

So...
- you don't know what effect the GM decided (since the book doesn't explicitly state he should tell you)
- On a 1, 2 or 3 you don't know the actual consequences will be... just that some are coming and you don't know whether your action has any effect, or none at all...until the GM arbitrarily decides
- On a 4/5 You could have anything from having to withdraw to severe harm and serious complications depending on the Position (which is GM set and discussed with players according to the book)... but it's the GM who has final say over exactly what happens and he can pick any of those available to him.
The way I see it there's still a ton of unknowns in BitD that rely on faith in the GM... is he limited sure, could he still royally screw the players over if he wanted to... yes.

You may frame it as something that only happens in bad faith by some evil killer GM, but in my experience, it's the exact opposite. They tend to be too merciful, and pull their punches — something I'm guilty of too.

In Blades, where I have a way to tell if the GM is doing something wrong, my response to consequences is often "this doesn't sound that Desperate to me, give me something harder" than "wait, this is too much".

Yeah you have the perfect benevolent BitD GM and all the DM's playing 5e are out to screw their players over... go figure that.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Honestly I feel like you are really overstating this DM can do whatever they want thing. They are optional approaches to minimize the usage of one aspect or another...but nowhere in the section on "Ignoring the Dice" does it advocate for a DM not to roll at all and nowhere in the section on "Rolling With It" does it advocate for a DM only ever rolling dice. The wording, examples, etc are very specific in avoiding an absolute.

So, we are stuck with another one of those things where the actual rules process that is stated for 5e GM's to follow is "maybe sometimes you may want to have players roll check, maybe always, maybe almost never, whatever you feel like is good." The point being, 5e doesn't really have a rule that talks about when a check IS MADE. Contrast this with Dungeon World, where the rolling of dice (a check, they don't call it that) is built into almost every move, and the making of moves happens in a highly structured way. Admittedly a GM could theoretically 'string the players along' but would soon run out of rope and have to either decide what move someone made, or else not really be playing DW anymore. Players can pretty much force checks like 'Discern Realities'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

EDIT: You seem to be arguing for a relative DC (believe me I know because I've used it in that manner as a hack) but that's not what this is. If a Tree is a DC 10 to climb... it's a DC 10 to climb regardless of level. Or another way to look at it is that they define "easy" as a 50% chance for Joe average to successfully do it.

This is equally true in 4e. It is just that DC10 is literally described as a medium difficulty level 1 DC. It is also an easy difficulty level 4 DC (or so, I am not going to look it up). This acknowledges that the PCs progress. So, a basic level 1 tree might be Medium Difficulty to climb, and a Mighty Fey Oak might also be Medium Difficulty to climb, but the Fey Oak is located in a level 15 area, so the DC is a level 15 Medium DC. Fictionally the Fey Oak IS a lot harder to climb, relative to a regular tree in a mundane forest. Its role however, as a moderate obstacle that will probably be overcome trivially by athletic PCs and maybe with a bit of trouble by others, is basically the same. This promotes understanding and appropriate use of story elements by DMs. It is clearly needed in order for the levels of SCs to be gauged!