D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?

[KarinsDad]

So you've defined the world to begin with in such a way that the only way of success is the one way you want the problem solved? By RAW, for Pathfinder and D20, tracking a human down a cobblestone road is a DC 20 check, which a 10th level Ranger can plausibly not fail on a 1. No, it's not a dropped neckerchief; it's the horse excrement stuck to his shoe that's distinct because the horse fed on apples. To nerf a can't-fail ability to a can't-succeed ability is rather extreme.

Which is a perfectly reasonable adjudication. My problem as DM is that I might not think of the horse excrement idea during the game. I did not think of it earlier when posting my earlier post. So yes, with a quick thinking DM, that's a totally fine idea.

If the PC has abilities which are explicitly defined like "a 10th level Ranger can track down a cobblestone road with a DC 20 check", then no, I will not change the rules. I'm a firm believer of using RAW (unless it is a fairly bad rule). I was actually talking about if the rules do not actually exist and the DM is winging it.

It's a DC 20 check, so he made it by 7. By denying the check, you have effectively changed the rules of the game, and made Tracking and Survival much less valuable. This is not even a "Mr. Awesome can't be tracked"; this is a full-on nerf of the tracking rules.

It depends on level of plausibility. A different way of saying it is that as DM, I think that the DC is 30, so a 27 does not cut it.

The point is not to change the rules, the point is to not be bound by the rules if a given rule does not make sense to the DM, or to make a new rule that does not exist only if it is plausible.

In some cases, it does not make sense that a PC could track an NPC through a town with cobblestone roads. In real life, you could not do this shy of extremely special circumstances (like a blood trail). There's probably nobody on this planet who could actually track someone through a town with cobblestone or concrete, or other hard surfaced roads. Granted, PCs can do extraordinary things that people cannot do in real life, but I like things to be somewhat plausible.

So if there is an actual rule, I'll use it (5E does not appear to have a lot of DCs yet defined). If not, I'll adjudicate based on what is plausible.

No, the concept of "just say yes" goes hand in hand with "listen to your players' speculations and steal the coolest ones for what's really going on". It's about agency, it's about making what players do matter in a game instead of what works is exactly what the programmers thought of before hand.

Yeah, I think that we are just talking at cross purposes here. Player ideas are often used in my game.

What I am talking about is that a player's idea is not required to even get a dice roll in my game. Just because someone thinks of something does not mean that as DM, I am obliged to have the world change to incorporate that idea,

Simple example. A player wants to create gunpowder. Sorry. I don't want gunpowder in my game world. He will not be successful, no matter how well he rolls on an Alchemy check. Some DMs do not like the idea of saying "no" to the player, so they let them roll and hope for a crappy roll. I don't do that. I'll just tell the player straight out that gunpowder cannot exist in my world because a) I don't want it there, and b) it's metagaming thinking to even come up with the idea. The people who first came up with gunpowder did not first think of shooting projectiles at enemies, they accidentally discovered a chemical reaction that was then used for entertainment and only later on used for combat.

A player is not entitled to bring gunpowder into my world. Just like any other player idea has to go through the filter of my expectations of what is reasonable for my world. This does not mean that only my solutions to problems exist, it means that a different solution has to be plausible given the current framework of the campaign.

You want to track someone across a lake? Good luck. Most NPCs are not going to dropping things into the lake so that you can track them.

You want to search around the border of a lake to pick up tracks, sure. I might say give me 3 dice rolls and it takes 8 hours of time. Why 3 rolls? Because there are 3 different places along the lake where people recently were hanging out, only one of them is the guy that the PCs are trying to track. Each location has different DCs and different info given. I do not necessarily make it a single dice roll, just for the result that the players are looking for. I might, I might not. Note: in this case, I would not tell them to give me 3 dice rolls right away. I would order the searches and have them roll the first site, roleplay that info and decision making, and if they decide to continue searching around the lake, go to the next site, etc.

This does not mean that I will definitely try to mislead the PCs. Sometimes, there is only one check. It means that the campaign world is evolving as it evolves (sometimes on the fly in the back of my mind) and just because a player asks for a roll does not mean that he will necessarily get the information he is seeking.

"Just say yes every time" is not, in my mind, the way to play. Mix things up. Throw out some red herrings once in a while. Listen to your players ideas, use some of them. But do not necessarily use an idea, no matter how cool it sounds. Use the ones that work best for your world.

 

[Minigiant]

That's because virtually all mages would. It doesn't take much wisdom at all to know that when going against dragons, you prepare anti-dragon magic.



I don't condone the abuse, but what do you want? If you want me to run everything past you, I will happily submit my character after each change. But I can't read your mind and know which things you will object to. If you don't want to do the labor of reading everything in the books you allow, or reading every character change, then you bear some of the responsibility for the problem.

I agree with you.
I was just explaining to some that this isn't all about power gaming, tricking DM, and breaking games.
Its all about clarity.

It's of course easier if you are [MENTION=1927]Thaumaturge[/MENTION] and your group actively runs stuff by you. Then you have the luxury of being lazy or tired and don't have to scan spell descriptions for wonkiness so RAW and RAI issues are minimized. So lucky.

 

[prosfilaes]

Unless, of course, you also assume that this is a busy cobblestone street with the sign of any particular smith's passing being continually obscured by other passersby, in which case the DC 20 would be far too low.

Not far too low; maybe a +10, like light snow.

But in any event, adjusting the rules to fit the situations present is something GMs do. If something really should be not doable with the means the PC is trying to do them, it's not doable no matter what the roll.

And if I wanted to play a game limited by predetermined choices of what is doable, I'd play a video game. And not doable often seems so limited; my tracker who can make a DC 30 should be able to do ridiculous, superhuman tracks. Error on the side of amazing, not boring.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Err on the side of amazing, not boring.

Yep.

Thaumaturge.

 

[billd91]

And if I wanted to play a game limited by predetermined choices of what is doable, I'd play a video game. And not doable often seems so limited; my tracker who can make a DC 30 should be able to do ridiculous, superhuman tracks. Error on the side of amazing, not boring.

Amazing vs down to earth (boring being in the eye of the beholder). That's going to depend a lot on the sytle of game you prefer. Game of Thrones vs Princess Bride. Or even LotR books vs LotR movies. Neither of these is wrong as long as your players buy in.

 

[Thank Dog]

RAW is exceptionally important.

-snip-

I've been playing a lot of Pathfinder lately.

That's a problem that is very particular to that system and the system it is based on. The issue of this thread is whether or not the same applies to 5e.

 

[Uchawi]

Of course it does. The version of D&D does not change the need for RAW or RAI. But how clear the rules are affects both.

 

[pemerton]

A lot of responses in this thread however are just a lot of repetition about how clarity is useful.

We know clarity is useful. However, is it MORE useful than the reasons he gave?

<snip>

Mike Mealrs: "Our rules for stealth, which may sound like a funny example.

<snip>

"So we just came out and said you know what, let the DM decide. We’re going to tell you the mechanic and just say, look DM, does it make sense that a player can hide in this situation?

I already responded to this upthread.

I have read the Basic PDF rules on Stealth. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall any point in those rules where they say "let the DM decide" or say "DM, does it make sense that a character can hide in this situation?"

In fact, the Stealth rules in 5e are full of technicalities, like the distinction between degrees of obscurement and who can and can't hide in such circumstances (eg elves vs others) and a blanket rule about disadvantage to Perception in mist and rain (as opposed to a general rule that the GM is to impose disadvantage when warranted by the fictional positioning).

So I think Mearls is misdescribing the Stealth rules his team authored. This is why I quoted and discussed the Burning Wheel Stealth rules upthread: to make the point that I have nothing against Stealth rules written in such a way as to depend upon GM adjudication. My complaint, minor as it is in the overall scheme of the universe, is that the 5e Stealth rules are not a very good example of such rues.

This is also why I keep mentioning the Hermit rules. These provide a good example, from 5e, of writing rules that do a good job of identifying the nature of, and need for, the GM's adjudicatory role.

 

[pemerton]

And I get this. I just prefer having the framework in play and only changing it if the PC or NPC actions should modify it.

I do not like modifying it, just because the players ask for an unexpected dice roll.

<snip>

What's implausible for my gaming style is that because a player wants to roll a tracking roll, reality suddenly shifts and because the player rolled high on a dice roll, that neckerchief suddenly mystically appears on the road.

<snip>

It's a style difference. Some DMs say "yes" to anything.

<snip>

The concept of "just say yes" seems to go hand in hand with "make sure your players are 100% clear on everything" type of approach.

4e was widely criticised - whether fairly or not - for saying that "there is just one way to play guitar" (the paraphrased quote is from Mearls, though I don't have the link).

I am assumin that 5e is not going to do the same thing.

Therefore it is necessary for the DMG to admit, upfront, that there are different approaches to RPGing, and that the scope of variation is greater than "do or don't we use minis+grid for combat".

Therefore, the fact that you don't like a particular style can't be a reason for the DMG not to mention it as a possibility. And the discussion of the different styles has to be neutral in itself.

That means that there has to be a clear discussion of the use of GM-authored secret backstory used to govern adjudication. Pros (eg it gives a sense of "being there", or exploring a "reality", etc) and cons (eg it can lead to situations like the one you described, in which a player feels that the GM shafted him with secret backstory - [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] described it as the GM pulling a Kobayashi Maru).

There also has to be a clear discussion of the use of "say yes or roll the dice". Pros (eg it gives the players a clear authorship role in relation to the shared fiction) and cons (eg for at least some players it reduces "immersion", the sense of really being there, etc; also, it undermines the competitive edge to play - what Gygax called "skilled" play - because the players are no longer solving a puzzle that has already been framed by the GM).

The DMG (and the designers) shouldn't be lobbying for one or the other. They should be doing their best to help players of all styles make use of the game material they, as commercial publishers, are selling.

My problem as DM is that I might not think of the horse excrement idea during the game. I did not think of it earlier when posting my earlier post. So yes, with a quick thinking DM, that's a totally fine idea.

Advice on any technique also need advice on how to generate the required fictional content. Because however you are playing an RPG, one of the quickest ways to dampen player enthusiasm is to refuse them the content they expect to have access to.

In a Gygaxian dungeon game, this incudes stuff like "What colour is the ceiling?" or "What is in the beakers in the mage's laboratory?" The DMG is full of appendics with lists of content to help answer these sorts of questions.

In a "say yes" game, the GM needs to think of neckerchiefs or horse dung or whatever else is needed to narrate a successful tracking check once it has been framed and the dice come up in the player's favour. This isn't just about GM spontaneity, either - techniques for framing checks and narrating outcomes can also be important (eg how did the player frame the PC's check? What did s/he say s/he was looking for? Can you cut straight to successful intent without having to worry too much about the details along the way eg "OK, with your 27 tracking check you find subtle trails on the cobblestones that others would miss. Following them, you arrive at the back entrance of the Green Dragon Inn. You can hear the voice of the fugitive coming loudly from inside. . . .")

In a game like your Champions one, too, you need content - what if the players says that the PCs look at the security cameras? what if one of the playes has an obscure superpower you've forgotten about, say to track psychic imprints or do object reading? Not everything can be written down and anticipated ahead of time.

The DMG should be discussing this sort of stuff. It's fundamental to game mastering.

 

[pemerton]

Amazing vs down to earth (boring being in the eye of the beholder). That's going to depend a lot on the sytle of game you prefer. Game of Thrones vs Princess Bride. Or even LotR books vs LotR movies.

With respect to the LotR, which one are you saying is "down to earth" and which one "amazing"?

From pp 446-7 of my one-volume edition:

"Where sight fails the earth may bring us rumour," said Aragorn. "The land must groan under their hated feet." He stretched himself upon the ground with his ear pressed against the turf. . . . At last he rose, and now his friends could see his face: it was pale and drawn, and his look was troubled.

"The rumour of the earth is dim and confused," he said. "Nothing walks upon if for many miles about us. Faint and far are the feet of our enemies. But loud are the hoofs of the horses. . . . [T]hey are drawing ever further from us, riding northward. I wonder what is happening in this land!"​

Also on pp 270-71:

If a man must needs walk in sight of the Black Gate, or tread the deadly flowers of Morgul Vale, then perils he will have. I, too, despaired at last, and I began my homeward journey. And then, by fortune, I came suddenly on what I sought: the maks of soft feet beside a muddy pool. But now the trail was fresh and swift . . . Along the skirts of the Dead Marshes I followed it, and then I had him.​

Aragorn seems like he could track someone across cobblestones!

There is also a broader issue here, similar to one that [MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION], [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] and I are discussing. Aragorn notes that "by fortune" he came upon Gollum's trail. In a novel, it is the author who gets to dictate strokes of fortune. What about in an RPG? I think KarinsDad is expressing a view where it is the GM who gets to decide whether or not the player benefits from fortune (eg the GM decides, in advance of any trackig roll, whether or not a neckerchief has been dropped). The "say yes or roll the dice" approach allows the player to exercise control over such fortune, in part by rolling the dice. So part of building up your PCs tracking skill is making it more likely that, when you try and track, you will have the fortune to come upon clear signs of passage.

As I've said, a good DMG would discuss the various approaches and the different sorts of affects that they have on gameplay, and how the rules of the game can be deployed in these various ways.