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

[prabe]

But, here's the thing. The game NEVER TELLS YOU what a success means. That was the point of the three results outlined. They are all successes. They are all plausible and reasonable successes.

Maybe you shouldn't call for a check if you don't know what success means. Generally, it means the PC succeeds (heh, heh) at what they're trying to do. If a DM isn't sure what a player is trying to, maybe that DM should ask.

And, "finding out what the players want" isn't part of the process. That's something you've added in.

No. It's not exactly "finding out what the players want." It's "finding out what the players are trying to do." And it's not something I think I've added in; it just seems to me that you can't define "success" if you don't know what's being attempted.

 

[prabe]

You're moving the pea.

Nope.

The range of possible outcome available to the GM actually includes nominally negating the action on a successful roll. Some GMs on this board directly recommend calling for a check for an impossible task, just to keep DCs hidden, and this isn't flat out refuted by the rules.

It's breaking the implicit rules. Therefore, it's breaking the rules. Something need not be refuted by the explicit rules to be

The truth is that for a game like 5e to work well, the GM has to balance their table, and the rules give a huge space within which to do this, but don't offer any real guidance or constraint on it at all. It's entirely up to the GM (and to an extent the table of players) to do this work.

Maybe the difference between how you and I understand the game's rules is that I see more implicit rules there than you do. In most things I tend to read very literally, but apparently not this.

It's a credit to you that you do this well. I agree with a lot of how you approach play -- I don't think you'd find much to complain about at my 5e table. The oddity is that you're so willing to credit the 5e rules for this when it's clearly you doing it, and doing it well.

It doesn't sound as though you'd complain much at my tables, either. I do give credit to 5E, and I also give credit (as you implied above) to the players.

[sorry--my day has been busy, and the fact that my reply is losing what you're replying to is making it hard for me to answer some things, so ... I'm not answering some things]

I mean, look at the numerous threads where how you do social interaction is debated -- some argue it should all be play-acting at the table with the GM as arbiter of outcome, and it's anathema to use mechanics to do this. This is supported by 5e -- there's a path called out in the DMG that is for this exactly. On the other side, there's others that argue that the mechanics are the way to go, otherwise it's just playing the GM and not the characters, so social mechanics are required. This is also a path in the DMG. Then there's a middle ground, which is, wait for it, also supported! Such a vast disparity in how you interact with one of the stated three pillars of the game, all equally supported and not by the rules.

Oh, they wrote the game, wanting to support different styles of play; I don't think there's much question of that. How well they managed that is ... debatable. Obviously debatable.

The truth of 5e is that it takes the GM to decide how it works. Don't give this hard earned skill back to 5e by claiming that it's the rules and not you doing it.

I think any game that has a GM, needs a good GM. I think what "good GM" means likely varies based on the game--and on the table.

 

[prabe]

Right, but I think @prabe is missing the point. The GM NEVER HAS TO CALL FOR A CHECK AT ALL. He never has to set any specific DC, just whatever one he feels like. He never has to explain what the costs of failure or the benefits of success are, not even after the fact! So, sure, he has to 'honor the rolls made by the player', but that's like saying I have to honor the beggar by not taking my money back. I never had to give it in the first place.

I wouldn't call a player at a 5E table a beggar ...

My broader point--which I think you might have missed--is that you can't define success or failure if you don't know what's being attempted. And if a DM ignores the result of a roll, or that the check happened, that DM is breaking the rules.

Presumably GMs either allow rolls, and don't make DCs totally arbitrary, and don't blatantly undo their results or subvert them constantly. This is TABLE PRESSURE. It works, to a degree, but it has nothing to do with system.

It would have been nice if they'd had more guidance what "hard" means in more contexts, but it's not table pressure that if a DM believes a task is "hard" that the DM should set the DC at 20: That's in the DMG, and it's explicit.

 

[prabe]

I have sadly been a part of way too many arguments here on ENWorld since 5e's release where a number of people have vehemently told me in full earnest good faith that (a) "the GM can't cheat" and/or (b) "the GM can't break the rules" for me to take what you say as a given truth.

I am aware there are people who disagree with me on this. I assure I am speaking "in full earnest good faith" on this--not that you are saying otherwise.

 

[prabe]

Doesn't the GM decide what happens next once the check is made?

The DM narrates the results. That's not exactly the same as deciding what happens next.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Nope.

It's breaking the implicit rules. Therefore, it's breaking the rules. Something need not be refuted by the explicit rules to be

Um... what? What are all of the implicit rules of the game, because this one is violated a few times in the published adventures, so I don't think it's as implied as you think it is.

Maybe the difference between how you and I understand the game's rules is that I see more implicit rules there than you do. In most things I tend to read very literally, but apparently not this.

Yes, this is probably true. I've made it a point to absolutely not look for implied rules, because they are not actually rules. Instead they are vectors for smuggling in things that aren't rules. In an RPG, where it's the GM doing it, this is less detrimental (depending on the rules, but this set you're discussion specifically) because it still creates a coherent game, just one the GM has partially imagined and enforced.

I actually use this as a life lesson for my kids, though -- to beware of smuggling in rules you think should exist but don't actually exist. For my son, who's plays competitive PC games, this was easy. He'd start to whine about how other players where doing "cheap" things and it wasn't fair. I got to ask if they were breaking any rules, and he'd say no, but it still isn't fair. And I got to point out that you play the game according to the rules that exist, not the rules that you imagine exist. That the play wasn't 'cheap' it was legal, and you can use those same rules to deal with it and get better. Imagining rules that don't exist just leads to you stalling in your understanding of the game.

While most of that doesn't apply to D&D, because the game is what the GM says it is, the last bit seems to definitely apply to your understanding of how the rules as they actually exist interact with your game and with the rest of the games out there. There are no 'implied' rules in D&D. These are just rules you've imagined.

It doesn't sound as though you'd complain much at my tables, either. I do give credit to 5E, and I also give credit (as you implied above) to the players.

I would, but that's because I'm not sure I could play 5e anymore. It's not what I'm looking for as a player. I'll run it, but I think I'd have to have a special reason to play it, these days. Mostly because of how the game runs -- which isn't a you thing. We do seem to agree largely on how to run 5e.

[sorry--my day has been busy, and the fact that my reply is losing what you're replying to is making it hard for me to answer some things, so ... I'm not answering some things]

Oh, they wrote the game, wanting to support different styles of play; I don't think there's much question of that. How well they managed that is ... debatable. Obviously debatable.

I think any game that has a GM, needs a good GM. I think what "good GM" means likely varies based on the game--and on the table.

They made it so there were a few different ways to play D&D with 5e. Whatever else you do, it'll still be D&D -- the D&Disms and genre expectations are the most hardwired parts. You will largely deal with things via combat. Magic is weirdly concrete and inflexible and mostly only good for removing any need to use skills outside of combat or being good in combat. Levels and classes. Monster manuals. These things make up the D&D genre (among others, this is a partial list). 5e does these things, and lets you run a fair few different ways but those are all pretty similar -- tightly controlled by the GM as final sayer of what, when, and how the rules work. Rulings not rules is just a restatement of the core mechanic of 5e -- the GM decides.

 

[prabe]

Um... what? What are all of the implicit rules of the game, because this one is violated a few times in the published adventures, so I don't think it's as implied as you think it is.

Yes, this is probably true. I've made it a point to absolutely not look for implied rules, because they are not actually rules. Instead they are vectors for smuggling in things that aren't rules. In an RPG, where it's the GM doing it, this is less detrimental (depending on the rules, but this set you're discussion specifically) because it still creates a coherent game, just one the GM has partially imagined and enforced.

I actually use this as a life lesson for my kids, though -- to beware of smuggling in rules you think should exist but don't actually exist. For my son, who's plays competitive PC games, this was easy. He'd start to whine about how other players where doing "cheap" things and it wasn't fair. I got to ask if they were breaking any rules, and he'd say no, but it still isn't fair. And I got to point out that you play the game according to the rules that exist, not the rules that you imagine exist. That the play wasn't 'cheap' it was legal, and you can use those same rules to deal with it and get better. Imagining rules that don't exist just leads to you stalling in your understanding of the game.

While most of that doesn't apply to D&D, because the game is what the GM says it is, the last bit seems to definitely apply to your understanding of how the rules as they actually exist interact with your game and with the rest of the games out there. There are no 'implied' rules in D&D. These are just rules you've imagined.

Maybe the rules aren't so much implied as inferred, which would mean it's about what's in the DM's head as opposed to what was in the various writers' heads. I read the rules for, say, Ability Checks, and I infer that success and failure have meanings that might not be in the literal words on the page, and I infer that those changes to the narrative should remain in place until/unless something happens in the narrative to undo them, and so on. I think I like inferred better than imagined here; maybe because we're getting into the differences between connotations and denotations.

This works well in a TRPG, which is (broadly) collaborative. It plausibly would work less well in something competitive, but competitive games have their own social contracts, IMO.

I would, but that's because I'm not sure I could play 5e anymore. It's not what I'm looking for as a player. I'll run it, but I think I'd have to have a special reason to play it, these days. Mostly because of how the game runs -- which isn't a you thing. We do seem to agree largely on how to run 5e.

That's a different case, then. Bluntly, I run 5E tables/campaigns I'd love to play; I haven't had great luck finding other DMs I enjoy playing 5E with, either.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I don't think I am misremembering, to be honest. I was in those thread and on the same "side" as you, and I'm sure evidence will relate but I don't you're characterizing them correctly, and further, you're talking about a pretty small subset of D&D players even by the standards of the time.

I mean, if we're talking ENworld post-4E, post-2008, anyone posting about 4E is going to be either:

A) Someone who plays/runs 4E

or

B) Someone who doesn't, but is very keen to interact - probably negatively - with people who do.

B is going to be a tiny group of people, and I'm pretty sure trawling through threads from that era will confirm that we're talking about a very small number of people. People who might be very loud, but who preferred, by and large, to come and tell 4E DMs/players they were wrong, to either talking about what they were playing, or other activities.

I think we're talking about two different things.

You're describing editions wars, on ENworld, during the 4E period, which was basically the WW1 of flamewars.

I'm describing a much broader milieu, where ENworld was only part of that.



Okay, so I'll take this at face value. I think the implication is "this would never happen", but maybe it's an honest question? Obviously it does happen. History is absolutely rife with lazy, corrupt, and foolish guards. Top to bottom. And looking at heists IRL, they're absolutely packed with them. Not all guards are, but an awful lot are, at least the ones who show up in the records (and based on personal experiences through my life I'd say most still are pretty lazy, esp. those over about 30).

People tolerate lazy guards because they have a limited pool of people to choose guards from and/or they don't know or sometimes even care about the laziness.

They're not recruiting from millions. Or even hundreds of thousands, in most cases. Or even tens of thousands. They're recruiting from who is available, and who is allowable. Unless you have vast resources and are willing to start burning them, your recruiting pool is basically whoever lives in your city or village and thereabouts. Maybe people coming through. And you want people who are reasonably healthy, probably on the large side physically (or at least fit, and rough-and-tumble), and who hopefully lack the cunning and imagination to exploit their position in terms of theft or the like. It would be nice if they'd been in one of the various citizen-militias your country has, but it's unlikely there's a standing army to draw from (and if there is, you're getting people who are aging out of it, leaving with injuries, getting thrown out and so on - unless you're paying more and offering better benefits). So you're probably getting a lot of people, mostly men, who are used to getting their way (due to their size or rough-and-tumble nature), who are signing on for a job that mostly involves standing around, walking around, and menacing people. It's not usually a job that goes anywhere (bodyguards are different), so you're not likely to get ambitious people, er, unless they're ambitious to steal your stuff.

You're probably not paying super-well, and it's unlikely you're paying for a lot of elaborate drills and practises and so on. You don't have any security cameras to see the malfeasance. Your only source of information is essentially other personnel who work for you. You probably can't afford to employ anyone but the guards 24-7, and no-one works 24-7. You've probably got some people in charge of the guards, but it's a bit of a toss-up as to whether they're actually disciplined, or just somewhat better than the rest at pretending that they are.

Anyway, TLDR, obviously people do tolerate lazy guards, historically, for a wide variety of reasons.

This is, as I've tried to tell you, a bad take. It's a very stupid position you're putting forward. You're obviously only ever experienced mall cops and think this is what guards are -- it's almost laughable. I mean, I've done work in security, have friends still doing work in security, and I work inside security every day I go to work. I have friends that are modern guards, we call them policemen. The idea that people will just tolerate lazy guards when their life is dependent on the guard doing their job (like, you know, during history where attacks were common, banditry not unexpected, and militaries needed to not get caught off guard) is stupid, You keep whinging about this being a strawman, but it's not. I'm saying that your idea requires stupid people, and no matter how much you think you have a pat explanation for this above, it still does. It's not a strawman -- it's a requirement for your explanation to be true. People MUST be stupid, moronically so, if they trust their lives and livelihoods to lazy guards. The concept of the lazy guard is a much more modern thing -- it actually requires a peaceful and violence free society to be allowable, because then guards are just a small nod to safety and security. And, even there, most guards aren't lazy because people do not hire and continue to employ people that are generally lazy. You also obviously have never managed a payroll. You don't pay people to be lazy.

All in all, this entire argument is rooted in required stupidity. You even make up silly reasons why people would tolerate it, as in you can't hire non-lazy people for guards. I mean, why? Guarding was a dangerous job, so it usually paid well. It required skills, like the ability to effectively do violence. That also tends to pay decently. Guards were not a low wage position, so you're not just picking up the dregs. Why you think this would be so is beyond me - again, I smell the taint of mall cop-itis.

And, as for the history of heists, I have no idea what you've imagined up for this. Do you mean Hollywood? Sure, that's a trope. It's not historical, and it's certainly not something endemic to the lessers of pre-Industrial Revolution times.

I mean, as an aside, it's a strange bit of logic, because humanity constantly tolerates things it shouldn't, particularly including low-grade work, and ill-disciplined soldiery. Usually the answer comes down to "they didn't have much choice" and or "it was too much effort to do otherwise". Both apply here.'

You're totally clueless about what guards did and that they were decently paid position. The logic here is very strange, but only on your part.

Sigh, you literally can't stop with the strawmen, can you? It's kind of funny/sad. I didn't say that. I didn't call anyone "stupid". That's you - repeatedly - you're arguing with your own claim. You are defining what a strawman is here, by making up things that I didn't say. I see that you don't know what a strawman is, because you're claiming that the idea that modern people are more disciplined is one:

You're really bad at this, you should stop calling Strawman. You're requiring people to be stupid to hire and maintain lazy guards -- this isn't a strawman, it's a requirement. Second, I'm not dismissing your argument on this basis -- I've provided direct refutations of your points. Third, it's you that keeps engaging strawmen, like your opening sentence of this very post where you assume my position that no lazy guards every existed -- a clear strawman and painfully untrue. Of course some guards were lazy, but it was less common that in general and certainly not the the point you've made -- that you can assume guards are lazy if they're from pre-1700, then 1300-1600, and then only in Europe.

No.

Straw man - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I might be wrong or I might be stupid about an idea. It still wouldn't be a strawman, ever. Because a strawman has a specific meaning.

It only becomes a strawman if I said "@Ovinomancer is saying people in the past were way more disciplined than now!!!" now. I.e. lying about what you were saying, or putting words in your mouth, that benefit your argument. You are doing that with all this talk about "stupid".

Oh, goodness, you've quoted Wikipedia about an informal logical fallacy. You must be in the right, then.

I have access to them but I don't run them.

What I'm saying is "facts not in evidence". You haven't been giving examples, just making sweeping unsupported claims. Now you've given some examples,, but they're really vague and imprecise. Can you give me some examples? Like page numbers even? Otherwise this just vague claims on your part.

Facts are in evidence, you just want homework done to your satisfaction. A number of examples have already been provided, and you've dismissed them for ridiculous reasons. Why should I invest in providing more when you'll just dismiss them as well. You're clearly not aware of the source material yourself, but that hasn't stopped you from claiming that they don't work how people that have played/run them say they do.

As I said, the last person who talked about this, made similar claims, then walked them back during his post with examples, because he realized they didn't actually show catastrophism, they showed "no guidance".

And here's the rub -- you've taken some definition of catastrophe and are running with it such that an example must meet with absolute ruin for it to pass muster. The fact that a single failed stealth check in the Fire Giant's Lair results in the alarm being sounded and the entire keep alerted isn't a catastrophe, I guess. And, yes, that's what the module says -- if the party is spotted, the alarm is sounded as quickly as possible.

Here's the quote from the Yakfolk village at the top:

Characters who enter the village within sight of this yakfolk must succeed on a DC 12 Dexterity (Stealth) check to avoid being spotted immediately. If this yakfolk spots any invaders, it abandons its slaves and heads to area 8 to warn Chief Kartha-Kaya.

The yakfolk chief has a large bronze gong in his hut (area 8). If he or his wives become aware of invaders, one of them strikes the gong. It is loud enough to be heard throughout the village, prompting the other yakfolk to come running. Yakfolk are vile in their pragmatism. Before setting out to confront invaders, they murder their slaves to prevent them from being freed or turned against them. To conquer the village, the adventurers must defeat all adult yakfolk that live here

Well, I guess you're right, that's not too bad, yeah?

And It's easy to believe you might be doing the same - treating weak or no guidance as catastrophism. You are the one who has to prove this, because you are the one asserting it to be fact. Sneering at me and claiming I don't know them, or I'm implying I'm weird (lol obviously) isn't an argument, it's a cheap ad hominem. Drop some page numbers or the like and I'll go look because I'm pretty sure my bro has all of those.

Heh, strong words from the poster that's stated, but provided absolutely not evidence other than their strange conjecture, that guards are lazy prior to 1700 in Europe.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Maybe the rules aren't so much implied as inferred, which would mean it's about what's in the DM's head as opposed to what was in the various writers' heads. I read the rules for, say, Ability Checks, and I infer that success and failure have meanings that might not be in the literal words on the page, and I infer that those changes to the narrative should remain in place until/unless something happens in the narrative to undo them, and so on. I think I like inferred better than imagined here; maybe because we're getting into the differences between connotations and denotations.

This works well in a TRPG, which is (broadly) collaborative. It plausibly would work less well in something competitive, but competitive games have their own social contracts, IMO.

Right, this is what I've been saying that you've been arguing with me on! It's not 5e, it's you, and good on you!

That's a different case, then. Bluntly, I run 5E tables/campaigns I'd love to play; I haven't had great luck finding other DMs I enjoy playing 5E with, either.

It's not the finding other GMs, it's that 5e provides play I'm not longer really looking for. GMing exercises different muscles that playing, so I'm fine with this.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I wasn't talking about a specific result so much as general odds. If any time I try to accomplish anything I am more likely to make things worse than not, I am not awesome--don't try to convince me I am.

At my tables, we call that the “Schlemiel and FooFoo” problem after a memorable ranger with terrible run of poor dice rolls.