D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[pemerton]

Scene based where skill checks are just another level appropriate obstacle and supposed to be overcome, thus PCs need to be good at everything to "participate" and goal based where the players have more control over the obstacles (which is difficulty based independent from the PCs levels) they face and success is not guaranteed. In that case its is OK if some PCs are bad at something.

This contrast doesn't really work.

Burning Wheel is a scene-based game in which DCs are "objective" and the PCs are expected to fail frequently.

HeroWars/Quest is more like 4e in being a scene-based game in which DCs are scaled. But even then there is no particular expectation that PCs should succeed (and likewise in 4e; hence the change in Essentials to the XP rules for skill challenges, awarding XP even for failure).

I also don't understand the contrast between "scene-based" and "goal-based" - the generic form of skill-based game is driven by player goals for their PCs.

 

[Balesir]

Success is not a bad option but I don't want to sit down to a game that is geared more towards winning or success. I don't play to win or even succeed, I play the game and whatever happens whether I succeed or I don't I accept it. Success and failure need to be equal options unless I go the extra mile and work more towards my success.

I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. The main issue is with the common assumption that D&D fights are "to the death"; the hit point mechanism doesn't really encourage any other outlook. Under this assumption, if fights are 50:50 affairs the game doesn't really work. Winning, say, 8 fights to go up to level two now only happens 0.3% of the time. Even at 99% chance of winning each fight, at 8 fights per level reaching level 20 is only around a 20% probability. Level 30 is around a 10% chance.

I think it's important to take into account the "power of numbers". If lots of tests are needed for success, even what appear to be rather good chances of success per step can result in poor chances of success overall. The same sort of thing applies to Skill Challenges; a 50% chance of success per roll means a 5% chance of success in a complexity 3 challenge, 1% chance in a complexity 5 challenge. Boosting the chance per roll to 85% (roll a 4 or better) gives an 82% chance at complexity 3 but still only 65% at complexity 5 (and in most cases there will be at least 1 failure, so there may be some cost for the success).

In short, even odds for winning sound cool at first blush, but the resulting game is actually pretty boring, brutal and short. Even relatively "dangerous" campaigns need to have most encounters slanted decidedly in the PCs' favour if there is to be anything much in the way of a story or a "campaign" at all.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. The main issue is with the common assumption that D&D fights are "to the death"; the hit point mechanism doesn't really encourage any other outlook. Under this assumption, if fights are 50:50 affairs the game doesn't really work. Winning, say, 8 fights to go up to level two now only happens 0.3% of the time. Even at 99% chance of winning each fight, at 8 fights per level reaching level 20 is only around a 20% probability. Level 30 is around a 10% chance.

I think it's important to take into account the "power of numbers". If lots of tests are needed for success, even what appear to be rather good chances of success per step can result in poor chances of success overall. The same sort of thing applies to Skill Challenges; a 50% chance of success per roll means a 5% chance of success in a complexity 3 challenge, 1% chance in a complexity 5 challenge. Boosting the chance per roll to 85% (roll a 4 or better) gives an 82% chance at complexity 3 but still only 65% at complexity 5 (and in most cases there will be at least 1 failure, so there may be some cost for the success).

In short, even odds for winning sound cool at first blush, but the resulting game is actually pretty boring, brutal and short. Even relatively "dangerous" campaigns need to have most encounters slanted decidedly in the PCs' favour if there is to be anything much in the way of a story or a "campaign" at all.

See I can increase my chances of winning by applying tactics and build choices. I want to be able to say " I'll be glad if we make it to the end" instead of "I'll be glad when we make it to the end".

I want real threats and I don't want the game to coddle me.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

To make a long story short.

I want a return to when being a hero was an outcome and not a playstyle.

 

[Ahnehnois]

In short, even odds for winning sound cool at first blush, but the resulting game is actually pretty boring, brutal and short. Even relatively "dangerous" campaigns need to have most encounters slanted decidedly in the PCs' favour if there is to be anything much in the way of a story or a "campaign" at all.

I don't know how you would know that, but I can assure you it's not true at all.

Campaigns where battles are rare and character death is regular are definitely not lacking in drama.

 

[Weather Report]

To make a long story short.

I wany a return to when being a hero was an outcome and not a playstyle.

Yes, a bit too much of this, as George Carlin said, "...you were the last winner...".

 

[Ahnehnois]

I wany a return to when being a hero was an outcome and not a playstyle.

I think the deeper point that you (and not just you) are on is that you want the rules to describe outcomes, not dictate them. That way, success or failure is decided by the people at the table.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think the deeper point that you (and not just you) are on is that you want the rules to describe outcomes, not dictate them. That way, success or failure is decided by the people at the table.

*must spread XP blah blah* Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[pemerton]

I think the deeper point that you (and not just you) are on is that you want the rules to describe outcomes, not dictate them. That way, success or failure is decided by the people at the table.

What changes would this require to traditional D&D mechanics like attacks, saving throws and damage?

 

[Ahnehnois]

What changes would this require to traditional D&D mechanics like attacks, saving throws and damage?

None. Attack rolls describe what happens when a character tries to attack. The attack either hits or misses. Likewise, hit points describe whether a character is alive or dead (or dying). There are certainly other ways of mechanically representing combat, but the ones you describe are not particularly prescriptive.

The rules that do dictate outcomes are the ones that establish relative values for hit points, attack rolls and so on. If one set of characters (the PCs, presumably) has systematically more hit points (or otherwise better mechanical ability) than another comparable set of characters (say, a cohort of equivalent-level monsters), then the larger outcome (who actually wins the battle) is being unduly influenced.

Alternatively, rules that change the meaning of attacks, damage, saves, etc. specifically for one set of characters also create that issue (e.g. damage on a miss abilities).