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

[Imaro]

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'.

Nope the process is decide how often you want to use the dice...then move onto the same process I detailed earlier on deciding on DC's. Nothing in any of the 3 approaches stops it from being valid. Unless any game where you can choose to say yes or no means all other guidelines are invalid. Since all GM's will have variation in frequency of options chosen.

 

[Imaro]

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!

No 4e defines it differently since they implicitly differentiate easy for level 1 vs easy for level 20...but 5e doesn't describe it in that way and there are mechanical reasons for that. You can prefer one or the other but neither is "right" or "wrong".

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I don't honestly understand the thing with 'lair actions'. They belong as just basic statblock stuff. Either you are encountering it in the lair, or probably not encountering it at all. And if your story is set up so the encounter is somewhere else, then you still want that stuff.

Do you? My guess - and it's only a guess - is that lair actions allow for standardized stat blocks for creatures e.g. all Frost Giants have the same basic stat block but if you meet a special one in its lair it has other things going for it as well (which also means it's in the party's interest to somehow lure it out of its lair, adding a whole new tactical layer to things).

 

[Manbearcat]

Here is a way that I would frame the arrangement of 5e as an action resolution engine and its implications upon play:

* Imagine a PBtA game. Lets take Dungeon World.

* Remove the imposed, table-facing, bell-curve producing spread of results (no 6-, no 7-9, no 10+). In its place have the GM decide the spread of results on any given move and leave it up to them how this spread is informed (genre logic...process logic...who is the baseline...everyday people...adventurers...adventurers of the level of the party?). Now leave it up to the GM if those spread of results are table-facing or GM-facing.

* Remove the Soft Move (make a threat) and Hard Move (and follow through) as explicit, encoded, principally-informed moves of proper GMing (the when, the why, the how) that gives structure/constraint to the GM's efforts.

* Remove the Follow the Rules and Play to Find Out tenants of the GMing agenda and replace them with Interpret the Rules and Decide When to Abide/Change/Ignore Them because Your Job as Lead Storyteller is to Make An Interesting Story and Memorable Experience Happen.

---

It should be abundantly clear that (a) Dungeon World would go from being a homogenously structured and played experience to a heterogenous one (across the distribution of all tables), (b) the GM signal on the trajectory of play would be increased, and the downstream effect would be that (c) the actual experience of play would be fundamentally altered.

That doesn't make play better or worse...but it does make it significantly different in terms of play priorities and in the actual experience of the play (by all participants) itself.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

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.

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.

So, lets reset a little bit here:

I think we've taken this whole sub-debate far enough to have pretty much clarity. That is to say, 5e is not providing an ability check system, in any particular, which is adapted to driving forward and resolving conflicts in a fashion that is conducive to dramatically driven styles of play. It doesn't provide ANYTHING in the way of real hard structure that such a process can be built on, without essentially starting over and rebuilding the check system (granting that its most basic ingredients, skills and ability scores, and the concept of DCs, are basically fine).

Lets remember what the point of all this was, as a part of the discussion on D&D compared to 'Bespoke Genre TTRPGs'. These bespoke games, pretty much always these days, ARE built on generalized resolution systems which feature odds/stakes setting and/or negotiation, consistent use across all conflict situations, some level of abstraction possible between the stated reason/goal when a check is made and the consequences, pre-decision setting of what those consequences are for all possible result states, etc. Each 'indie game' will pick and choose some mix of these, maybe with other elements and possibly with some quirks, but the fundamentals of player choice will be there. Honestly vanilla PbtA games like DW probably lack the most of these features of any such systems, yet they are vastly different from 5e and produce much different results. Mostly they DRIVE THE GAME DIFFERENTLY.

One of the frustrations with a game like 5e is simply that it really doesn't handle models for PCs that are far from 'remorseless self interest coupled with total team dedication'. It is simply not feasible to reliably engage the PCs in specific ways. You can give them 'hooks', but even something as basic as DW's bonds is missing. Nor could you really implement it in terms of checks made to accomplish enacting the bond, because checks are so ambiguous! I mean, you can write a 'bond rule' into 5e, but it only works to the extent that the GM runs with it. The DW bond rule 'just works', and guess what, PCs form bonds! You can use those to produce all sorts of results, like a PC actually risking his life for someone, he's got XP on the line! (the player does, but now the two's goals are aligned).

I mean, in indie terms, 5e is playable, but only in the sense that it doesn't seem to set out to accomplish anything.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Nope the process is decide how often you want to use the dice...then move onto the same process I detailed earlier on deciding on DC's. Nothing in any of the 3 approaches stops it from being valid. Unless any game where you can choose to say yes or no means all other guidelines are invalid. Since all GM's will have variation in frequency of options chosen.

Huh, you said 'nope' and then repeated me! lol. You can use the dice as often or as seldom as you the GM feel like. Any of those approaches is 'valid'. I don't understand the 3rd sentence. The 'choosing to say yes or no' isn't the issue here. I mean, OK, a GM in any game can be an utter shite and just tell everyone that nothing they want to do is within genre and is completely ridiculous. I'm pretty sure that isn't a meaningful example, it is equivalent to a 5e GM declaring 'rocks fall, you're dead'. What I'm saying is there is no such variation in say, Dungeon World. The use of moves (checks basically) is very structured. It is not up to the GM in any meaningful way when they will be happening.

 

[Manbearcat]

The conversation right now is highlighting the most important aspect of variance within 5e GMing (and the attendant obstacles to PC inference of how play will look like at the build stage and what the possible math is for outcomes in actual play and what the outcomes themselves will be) that I sought to discuss in my DC 30...35 (?) thread from 2015/16.

1) Is the DC informed by genre logic? Is it informed by process simulation? Some kind of nebulous admixture? A moving target?

2) Who is the baseline that anchors the natural language (and therefore derived number) of Easy, Moderate, Hard (et al)? Is it a commoner? Is it an adventurer? Is it an adventurer of the average level of the party? Something else? Some moving target?

3) How do factors (like the ones @tetrasodium list) inform moving the DC up or down?


These things can't be underplayed. The data from that DC 30...35 thread was all_over_the_map on each of 1-3 above creating a massive variance in DC configuration from table to table (hence one huge aspect of the intentfully designed heterogenous nature of tables in 5e). Different GMs had vastly different positions on each of 1-3 and I can't say they were particularly internally consistent in-and-of-themselves (genre logic for this one...process logic for this one...some unquantifiable admixture for this one...commoner baseline for this one...adventurer for this one...party level for this one)! This has a huge impact on play (and this doesn't even touch table-facing vs GM-facing...which just amplifies the affects of 1-3 above)?

 

[loverdrive]

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 becaus

They do.

I'm sure it's said somewhere more explicitly, but even the page Acrobat has opened my pdf on (26) says: "After factors are considered and the GM has announced the effect level, a player might want to trade position for effect, or vice versa." Which make sense, since an important part of making Action Rolls is the ability to trade position for effect... Which you can't do if you don't know either.

Examples of play also illustrate the GM announces both.

Oh, the page 27 also explains why:
"By assessing effect and describing it in the fiction, the players understand how much progress they’re making and how much they’re risking. By understanding effect, the group understands how many actions (and risk of consequences) will be needed to achieve their goals. Maybe a shallow cut is all you need to prove your point. Maybe nothing short of death will suffice. After each instance of action, effect, and consequences, the players know where they stand, and can make informed decisions about what to do next."

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.

The GM has final say on what exact consequence happens, but it's severity is already established. They just can't say "you suffer Lvl 4 harm: Electrocuted" on a botched Tinkering roll from a controlled position.

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.

I don't think I ever said that. The only example of GM fudging the DC I given was in favor of a player.

Overall, it isn't about bad evil killer GMs that should be put in cages, or, even better, put down. It's also not about being 100% sure what happens (then, what's even the point of touching the dice?).

It is about the difference between the GM looking at the rolled die and then just deciding what happens with practically zero restrictions and the GM looking at the rolled dice and giving an outcome we have agreed upon.

If we have agreed that the position is Desperate, then "oh, you didn't hit him, try something else" won't work. Make it "oh, you didn't hit him and he shoos back. Take lvl 3 harm: nasty gunshot wound".
If we have agreed that the position is Controlled, then the opposite is true.

If we have agreed that the effect is Great, then "you have barely scratched him" wouldn't cut it. Make it "you've sliced him open, and his guts are spilling out of his belly".

In 5E, the only thing we must agree upon is what modifiers apply to the roll. Everything else is up to GM to decide, and the player has barely any way to tell if the GM's decision was even right.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The conversation right now is highlighting the most important aspect of variance within 5e GMing (and the attendant obstacles to PC inference of how play will look like at the build stage and what the possible math is for outcomes in actual play and what the outcomes themselves will be) that I sought to discuss in my DC 30...35 (?) thread from 2015/16.

1) Is the DC informed by genre logic? Is it informed by process simulation? Some kind of nebulous admixture? A moving target?

2) Who is the baseline that anchors the natural language (and therefore derived number) of Easy, Moderate, Hard (et al)? Is it a commoner? Is it an adventurer? Is it an adventurer of the average level of the party? Something else? Some moving target?

3) How do factors (like the ones @tetrasodium list) inform moving the DC up or down?


These things can't be underplayed. The data from that DC 30...35 thread was all_over_the_map on each of 1-3 above creating a massive variance in DC configuration from table to table (hence one huge aspect of the intentfully designed heterogenous nature of tables in 5e). Different GMs had vastly different positions on each of 1-3 and I can't say they were particularly internally consistent in-and-of-themselves (genre logic for this one...process logic for this one...some unquantifiable admixture for this one...commoner baseline for this one...adventurer for this one...party level for this one)! This has a huge impact on play (and this doesn't even touch table-facing vs GM-facing...which just amplifies the affects of 1-3 above)?

So, here's just a general question on the nature of checks to start with, and if it is even possible to use a check system that has different target ranges for success based on some sort of difficulty factor (which covers both 4e and 5e, and 3e et al as well) in a system where checks are fundamentally a REGULATOR OF DRAMA. That is in Dungeon World there's no such thing as 'scaling by level' or 'difficulty factor'. It doesn't even make sense as a concept in PbtA. While checks ARE triggered by choices made by the players, it is hard to say that they are really 'measures of success and failure' so much as 'measures of fortune'. You don't have a 25% chance to hit a dragon and a 90% chance to hit an orc. You hit either one of them with Hack & Slash on a 7+ on 2d6 (maybe a 6+ if you manage to invoke some 'hold' or something like that). The point being, if you were to substitute a 5e-like attack roll instead, the results would be rather different. Orcs would simply go up in a puff of smoke almost all the time, dragons would eat you almost all the time, which is probably true in DW now, but as the rules are written there would be some give and take. Your blows might not really kill the dragon, it has a bunch of hit points, but they would at least do something, fictionally. With the scaled checks that wouldn't even happen, the sucker would just eat you and you'd stand their unable to fight back at all.

Beyond that, outside of combat, a lot of what checks do is pacing. Moves get made that introduce evolution of the game state. The mix of success and failure is more intended to regulate the amount of pressure on the PCs, not to model how hard things are. The GM simply describes THAT. Now, BitD, for example, is a bit different, the values you need to hit are always fixed, but the position and effect vary, which is a bit like changing DCs. I'm just not sure changing DCs is ever going to be a really super good model for this type of game.

I mean, it DOES work in Skill Challenges, because there's a lot looser coupling there between a check and what it portends, at least potentially. The GM isn't 'making moves' based on the player moves. I'd note though that effectively it amounts to the same thing, you always basically use medium DCs in 4e SCs, except in specific situations. However you CAN say "this challenge is really hard, all the DCs are level+2 medium! Pacing happens a bit differently.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I didn't pull my excerpts from that section it's a totally different topic but ok... let's take a look at it.

This section appears to be a set of options for the DM to decide what role the dice will play in his particular game...

The Role of the Dice

Premise: The dice are neutral arbiters... the extent to which you use them is entirely up to you.

Ok so the extent to which you use the dice will be decided by the DM... make sense since you can say yes... say no or require a roll, nothing too amazing here.

Rolling With It
-Some DM rely on dice for almost everything
-When a character attempts a task the DM calls for a check and picks a DC
-Can't rely on the characters succeeding or failing on any one check to move the action in any one direction
-Must be ready to improvise and react to a changing situation
-Drawback: Roleplaying can diminish if players feel dies rolls determine outcome more than their decisions

The very first thing I notice with this option is the word usage of "almost" everything. So even these options are acknowledging they are not absolutes, and so with that said... I still see the principles I discussed earlier being used with this choice. Majority of the time the DM's answer will be roll for it but rarely they will invoke Yes or No.

Ignoring the Dice
-Use dice as rarely as possible
-Example: Some DM's only roll for combat
-DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on the players making their case
-Example: describing searching for a secret door in the correct spot and twisting the correct sconce to find the trigger
-Rewards creativity by encouraging players to look to the situation described for an answer
-Downside: No DM is completely neutral

Again I notice the conditional wording... "as rarely as possible". But even more telling is the example of the secret door they give... what this style seems to be suggesting to me is that the decision points in the game will almost always be framed in a yes/no choice for the players actions from the DM but there will be smaller fringe cases where the DM will still use the dice. Again not seeing how the guidelines don't apply here as it's not actually supporting no dice rolls whatsoever and implies there have to be clear and definite yes/no answers for what the DM does rule on without dice rolls.

The Middle Path
-Using a combination of the two as the best approach
-Strikes a balance between players relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game world
-At any time you can decide a players actions are automatically successful
-You can grant the player advantage on any ability check reducing influence of a bad die roll
-You can grant disadvantage to transform the easiest task into a an impossibility

This uses a mixture of both so the guidelines apply.

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.

Oh, whew. They avoided always and never, so I guess that means it's actually a narrow area where the GM doesn't have complete autonomy to decide votes things. I mean cutting off always and never is exactly how you really constrain things.