D&D General "Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued

[AbdulAlhazred]

Right, which is exactly the point I was making in the later parts of the paragraph lead you quoted: the skill challenge framework in 4e doesn't teach you these things, you've brought them in from other places. I absolutely disagree that the 4e skill challenge system is incompatible with traditional GM-decides resolution methods. 4e itself shows this with the many printed adventure skill challenges being essentially upgraded versions of 3e's complex skill checks -- just as scripted and pre-ordered. I think it's very hard to run this kind of skill challenge, and it involves an almost required use of Force, but even so, this is how it was presented, especially if you lacked the awareness of other approaches.

I mean, for a modern example of traditional approaches in skill challenged, Matt Colville has a few videos discussing skill challenges where they are pre-scripted event chains. I was disappointed to find this still being presented, as I find fiction-forward approaches much better, but there you go.

I think this speaks to the way that there is a definite lack of full commitment to a new paradigm in the design team of 4e.
Truthfully, what would be the purpose of having skill challenges if you didn't really intend them to be used in a 'story game' kind of approach? They don't serve much purpose. I mean, yes 3.5 had 'complex skill checks', which is pretty much identical, but it was buried in the back if a supplement that wasn't even released until late in 3.5 and was certainly not some sort of major subsystem or large enhancement to the game. It was more of just another of the myriad of little optional rules that you could use if it suited you in some specific situation. In fact I think it was envisaged there as more just an easy recipe for handling a situation where several skills applied.

And as you say, its a terrible way to handle things in a classic sort of game. It does work for a certain type of scenario where you want an 'encounter' that isn't actual combat, but that is really a pretty niche thing. The examples that are given in DMG1 don't even fall into that category really. They are much more 'story' type things, but then they are handled too much like encounters, so it doesn't quite come off.

But again, I don't see why this would have been introduced except as a story game kind of a mechanic. It might have been sold as "hey, lets see if people will accept this sort of play and get them familiar with it." If so, I think the idea was badly conceived, and I am more inclined to think it was pushed by one 'faction' of the design team, but the other 'faction' didn't really allow it to be fully articulated in a way that worked. It was a step too far for WotC to take with the team they had working on 4e. Or maybe they just ran out of time, I don't know.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Still not seeing a difference.

5E has DCs by difficulty as well. It also works the same way.

As you mention... "I want to make a Diplomacy Check" and "Can I use Diplomacy" are incomplete player actions and are rejected at my table. I would ask for more information about what the player wants to accomplish. I would require their actual in-game action. I would also require their intent and their assumptions of success. "I want to trick the Duke" isn't enough, for example. I need to know how they want to trick the Duke and for what purpose/outcome?

B/X doesn't have skills. But, I'd approach these things in the same manner. I would get the action, intent, and assumed outcome and apply the rules. Often getting the aforementioned information clarifies the matter. In the case of interacting with the Duke, that would be a Reaction roll. Modified by any situational bonus based on the approach of the player and the in-game situation. If there are no rules that apply, I would make a ruling. I already have a very good understanding of the action, so it is relatively trivial to do so.

I can achieve the same results in adjudicating player actions in 5E and in B/X as you can with skill checks and skill challenges in 4E.

But, 'finality of outcome' is a big deal. In a 4e SC (or other systems equivalent mechanics) you go through the mechanical process. Sure, the GM may have set a complexity, a level, and some primary/secondary skill choices, but once the SC starts, there is a hard and fast rule. Once the PCs achieve N successes before 3 failures (modulus some RC-era tweaks) the challenge is over, they won. In 5e there's no such thing as "we won", the GM can continue to ask for checks until the end of time. He can play "oh, best 2 out of 3! No... better make that 3 out of 5!" etc. Beyond that, because no 'victory' is ever declared, nothing becomes consequent on that victory. One of the principles of narrative structured play is "you never reverse a finalized situation." Once the PCs have beaten some SC and enjoyed the rewards, you don't put them up to stake again! You might allow the PCs to 'wager' their new fortunes on something else, but the old bad guy never comes back and reclaims his treasure, so to speak. It is never really clear in a game like 5e when that bridge has been crossed. So that is one issue, and one difference.

 

[Campbell]

I see the role of the GM as the arbiter of the game. Every game is different and every situation that develops in a game is unique. It is unique because of the in-game situation, the context of the adventure/module, and even the nature of the people at the table. The best person to determine the outcome of events at the table is the GM. They are the ones with "boots on the ground', so to speak. They have the best information as far as how a situation can be successfully and satisfactorily resolved.

A B/X Referee is absolutely a neutral arbiter of the rules and the fiction, but that does not like carry over to every game. It's up to the individual game what the GM's role is (if there even is one). An Apocalypse World MC (GM) is not a neutral arbiter. You make GM moves based on a defined agenda and the game often instructs the GM on what to do. In Marvel Heroic the GM has authority over scene framing but not the rules of the games. In White Wolf games the Golden Rule applies in that the GM is supposed to do what's best for the story - not neutrally arbitrate the rules and the fiction.

In my estimation 5e cannot decide if it wants a Golden Rule GM ethos or an actual Rulings focused ethos. I think it suffers from not making that choice.

 

[heretic888]

I think this speaks to the way that there is a definite lack of full commitment to a new paradigm in the design team of 4e.
Truthfully, what would be the purpose of having skill challenges if you didn't really intend them to be used in a 'story game' kind of approach? They don't serve much purpose. I mean, yes 3.5 had 'complex skill checks', which is pretty much identical, but it was buried in the back if a supplement that wasn't even released until late in 3.5 and was certainly not some sort of major subsystem or large enhancement to the game. It was more of just another of the myriad of little optional rules that you could use if it suited you in some specific situation. In fact I think it was envisaged there as more just an easy recipe for handling a situation where several skills applied.

And as you say, its a terrible way to handle things in a classic sort of game. It does work for a certain type of scenario where you want an 'encounter' that isn't actual combat, but that is really a pretty niche thing. The examples that are given in DMG1 don't even fall into that category really. They are much more 'story' type things, but then they are handled too much like encounters, so it doesn't quite come off.

But again, I don't see why this would have been introduced except as a story game kind of a mechanic. It might have been sold as "hey, lets see if people will accept this sort of play and get them familiar with it." If so, I think the idea was badly conceived, and I am more inclined to think it was pushed by one 'faction' of the design team, but the other 'faction' didn't really allow it to be fully articulated in a way that worked. It was a step too far for WotC to take with the team they had working on 4e. Or maybe they just ran out of time, I don't know.

From what I have read here and there online, skill challenges were even more "storygame"-ish during playtest. Apparently if a player made a hard check they actually got to declare what happened as a result.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

From what I have read here and there online, skill challenges were even more "storygame"-ish during playtest. Apparently if a player made a hard check they actually got to declare what happened as a result.

Interesting. That is definitely a different allocation of narrative authority. 4e, as released, certainly hewes in this respect close to older D&D, the GM is the only one who can specify what happens outside of the players direct input on what their PCs choose to do.

Of course, it isn't necessary to grant players this type of authority in order to have a narratively focused game, but it is hard to say a game is NOT at least partly in that camp if it DOES grant such to players.

 

[Campbell]

Based on some of the remarks Rob Heinsoo has made there seems to have been a lot of internal strife on the 4e team.

 

[pemerton]

I can achieve the same results in adjudicating player actions in 5E and in B/X as you can with skill checks and skill challenges in 4E.

<snip>

I prefer the versatility of making rulings.

<snip>

I see the role of the GM as the arbiter of the game.

<snip>

They have the best information as far as how a situation can be successfully and satisfactorily resolved.

I'm not talking about "results", in either of the following senses: (i) what takes place in the shared fiction; (ii) settling on an outcome of the action declaration.

All RPGs achieve (ii), assuming they're remotely function - the player declares an action for his/her PC and some sort of outcome is established by some process or other.

And there is no particular correlation between various resolution processes, and various things taking place in the shared fiction. Eg suppose a skill challenge resolution results in events A, B, C, D and finally E occurring - the same sequence of events in the fiction could be established by the GM telling a story, which would be a very different process.

What I am talking about is the process of resolution.

Still not seeing a difference.

<snip>

B/X doesn't have skills. But, I'd approach these things in the same manner. I would get the action, intent, and assumed outcome and apply the rules. Often getting the aforementioned information clarifies the matter. In the case of interacting with the Duke, that would be a Reaction roll. Modified by any situational bonus based on the approach of the player and the in-game situation. If there are no rules that apply, I would make a ruling. I already have a very good understanding of the action, so it is relatively trivial to do so.

<snip>

My ruling would look something like this: "You can attempt <intended action>, if you succeed <what you assume happens> if you fail <something else happens>". The outcomes of success and failure will be clearly defined for the player because I know what the player intends and expects. You have the same possibility of consequences and the same finality.

I could ask for a skill check or not. It would depend on the situation... I could just rule that the player automatically succeeds or automatically fails based on the situation at hand. I can make a ruling tailored to the situation at hand without being constrained to satisfy some game mechanic construct.

<snip>

In B/X, if a fighter wanted to stage an ambush, the player of the fighter would describe what actions his character will take to set up the ambush based on the in-game situation and the DM would make a ruling if it would be successful or not. The thief would do the same thing. If the thief wants to use their Hide in Shadows, they may do so. The use or not of Hide in Shadows doesn't change the situation. The thief can prepare an ambush in the same manner as the fighter without consideration of their thief skills.

<snip>

In the other situations described above... handling a fighter using action surge in a running race, or wooing someone with song, these are outlier areas that are left to be handled by the GM making a ruling.

In a running race, a GM can look at the in-game situation regarding the race and make a ruling. Does the fighter want to use Action Surge to give them a quick boost of speed? Or are they tapping into their reserves in a marathon? The description of what the player wants to do and their intent needs to be known. The GM can rule based on that intent.

Wooing someone with song would be exactly as you suggest. In 5E it would be a Charisma (Performance) opposed check vs Wisdom. In B/X it would be a Reaction Roll. Before rolling you need to know how the player is doing this ('what song are they singing?"), you also need to know what the player wants out of it (what favor they want from the NPC). Then you can determine and state what happens if you succeed or fail. The GM determines difficulty based on the guidance of the rules and based on their understanding of the NPC that they created and presents the success/fail states. The player then chooses to make the roll.

Here we see the relevant differences in processes. The processes you describe all ten to make the GM the determiner of what happens.

 

[Argyle King]

Admittedly, I have not read all 15 pages.

I simply read the first page and had the following thought: I disagree with the claim that 5E uses "natural language." Most of the rules problems are (in my opinion) due to using words in a way which do not clearly mean what the words would naturally mean in another context.

 

[Don Durito]

Admittedly, I have not read all 15 pages.

I simply read the first page and had the following thought: I disagree with the claim that 5E uses "natural language." Most of the rules problems are (in my opinion) due to using words in a way which do not clearly mean what the words would naturally mean in another context.

God yes. Like the recent change to Booming Blade so that it now Targets "Self" so it can't be used with Warcaster.

It's a melee attack - there's absolutely nothing natural langauge about putting target self on something which is basically a melee attack.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Admittedly, I have not read all 15 pages.

I simply read the first page and had the following thought: I disagree with the claim that 5E uses "natural language." Most of the rules problems are (in my opinion) due to using words in a way which do not clearly mean what the words would naturally mean in another context.

See, I agree with you. But many who have spoken in 5e's defense on this subject insist that the "natural language" concept, which the designers did reference while the game was being designed, is alive, well, and unequivocally good for the game.

My real argument on this specific subject (a narrow application of the overall topic) is that people have pursued a meta-aesthetic--"natural language"--by using language that sounded natural to them at the time. But what is natural in one context may be highly unnatural in another*...or may sound natural to one person and unnatural to another. That's why we develop precise terms: because naturalness is a constantly-moving target, as it should be, while clarity and specificity are far less so. But because it's so compelling to conceive of a game that you can just understand because everything is written and described with natural, common-use words, people were willing to throw most other considerations out the window. And we are now left with melee spell attacks with a target of "self" and "melee weapon attacks need not actually have any weapons, and are different from melee-weapon attacks," or the confusion over whether you have an Action and a Bonus Action or simply can take an Action and a Bonus Action, etc.

*Consider that saying, "I love all people" is a heartwarming and affirmative message when said in a conversation about, say, politics and religion, but an incredibly hurtful thing to say when your spouse asks you in a distraught voice, "Do you love me?"