Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8365616" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, the problem is that 90% of your 5e GMs are 2e/3e/PF GMs that 'know how it is done' and treat this as a set of checks associated to each action the PC takes. That's just the reality. Even in the cases where the GM kind of knows better, it is hard to get players to match expectations with that, because it isn't a PROCESS, there's not the sorts of negotiations and mechanical decision points that, say, story games, or 4e SCs, give.Yes, I don't find this to be a viable strategy for a game to take. I guarantee you near 100% of 5e games work as if you were playing 3e in this respect, and as you have noted, pretty much all the modules assume this too.I'm not totally sure where this came from. In 4e the high level PC wouldn't be rolling at all when they encounter the scree slope (under conditions similar to what challenged the low level PC). It MIGHT factor as a hazard if there was a combat in that area or something. I guess perhaps you MIGHT find an SC check to see if you went up the slope fast enough to beat some time clock or something, maybe. The FICTION is going to inform the choices. If the slope is icy scree halfway up a mountain in Tartarus, then sure, the high level guy will find the DC worth considering. But that's exactly it, high level guys aren't adventuring a mile from their home town, they are adventuring in Tartarus! I mean, sure, you can say "I devised the fictional trajectory of my campaign such that at 20th level the PCs would be in Tartarus, because I need a place crazy enough to evoke DCs that they might not pass!" and I won't argue with that, but IMHO that is just telling me what the design goal of 4e is. This is the beauty of design transparency, the game actually just tells you what will work. You can still tweak it of course. Maybe some people put those DCs on "adventuring at the top of Mount Everest", OK, I'll buy it.Anyway, I think we're not exactly in disagreement there, lol.Again, this is not going to fly because we need MORE STRUCTURE to explain the valence of each check. 5e's supposed way is non-viable ON THE FACE OF IT, for that reason. It leaves the player in a limbo of having no idea what the significance of their actions are, even for their own survival.Nor do you set DCs based on the specific skill bonus of a given PC in 4e. That's what levels are for, and if the players have managed to arrange things such that every challenge they face is exactly tuned to the capabilities they have built into their characters, more power to them!But see, again, that's where I don't really agree with you. 4e DCs are purely based on fiction. What is or is not a challenge is based on what fiction actually evokes challenging DCs. I mean, if the GM (and players) want to depict their characters frolicking in grassy fields all day, well there won't be any checks made! There's no such thing as a level 20 grassy field, it doesn't exist. In both 4e and 5e the fiction will be set up such that challenge will exist. In that sense, I would not expect the two systems to differ. This is why in the end the 5e system isn't really sufficient, because it seems to want to pretend otherwise. This is confusing and obtuse.Well... OK, someone COULD play 4e under a terrible misconception that DCs are 'magically' set to the level of the PC, I guess. They would have to really avoid a major amount of basic reading. For example all the example terrains in every book are pretty clear, low level challenging terrain is (relatively) mundane. High level challenging terrain is magical, exists in fantastical locations, etc. It seems like a message that is pretty hard to miss.</blockquote>

Verification