Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8366794" data-attributes="member: 16814">This isn't anything different for me when I run 5e, either.&nbsp; If I pick a DC that doesn't make sense, it's almost always because of a mismatch between my description/understanding and the players'.&nbsp; This usually gets resolved with a 'huh, why's that?'&nbsp; I'm not sure that the distinction your drawing is actually there -- I don't think this rests on subjective versus objective, at least as I understand how you're using the terms.&nbsp; You're picking the DC for 4e based on the level range you've selected and if it's an easy, medium, or hard challenge.&nbsp; For this, you've described the fiction to support your selection -- a failure at this description means that there's confusion about where the DC came from.&nbsp; For this to work, the DC you pick has to align to the fiction of the situation -- if you pick a +4 level hard DC, then you need to have described that for it to make sense.All of that appears to be true for 5e and Burning Wheel, though.&nbsp; If a player in my 5e game tries something I think is hard, it should be not surprising when I say, &quot;that sounds hard.&quot;&nbsp; If it is, then I need to revisit my fictional description of the situation.The difference, as far as I can glean, is that 4e has a much wider range of DCs selectable than 5e does, because the GM can choose challenge levels and then easy/medium/hard.&nbsp; This range of DCs means that the initial argument I joined the thread on -- that 4e PC's increase in ability is largely moot because of the increase in DCs -- still largely holds.&nbsp; If the GM is softballing with lower levels, then neglected skills get better, but if they hardball with higher levels, then neglected skills get worse.&nbsp; Same for focused skills.&nbsp; 5e pulled out the level selection and broke the treadmill.&nbsp; So, if we consider that, then 5e is like always selecting on level skills, and, here, the impact of baseline improvement shows zero impact on on level skills.&nbsp; You HAVE to consider lower level challenges for it to have an impact, and then, on average, it doesn't really exist.&nbsp; It's like playing 5e with an arbitrary (because challenge level in 4e is arbitrary) +/-2 on DCs.I think that you categorize 4e as having subjective DCs because they're selected without consideration for the fiction -- instead, the fiction is built around the DCs.&nbsp; So, you can elect to use DCs for their pacing effects (as one example) rather than because that what the fiction/action suggest.I don't think I'd call this &quot;subjective&quot; vs &quot;objective,&quot; though.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd call objective DCs ones that are set for a given task prior to play - like the athletics DCs in 4e, or most of the DCs in 3e.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8366794, member: 16814"] This isn't anything different for me when I run 5e, either. If I pick a DC that doesn't make sense, it's almost always because of a mismatch between my description/understanding and the players'. This usually gets resolved with a 'huh, why's that?' I'm not sure that the distinction your drawing is actually there -- I don't think this rests on subjective versus objective, at least as I understand how you're using the terms. You're picking the DC for 4e based on the level range you've selected and if it's an easy, medium, or hard challenge. For this, you've described the fiction to support your selection -- a failure at this description means that there's confusion about where the DC came from. For this to work, the DC you pick has to align to the fiction of the situation -- if you pick a +4 level hard DC, then you need to have described that for it to make sense. All of that appears to be true for 5e and Burning Wheel, though. If a player in my 5e game tries something I think is hard, it should be not surprising when I say, "that sounds hard." If it is, then I need to revisit my fictional description of the situation. The difference, as far as I can glean, is that 4e has a much wider range of DCs selectable than 5e does, because the GM can choose challenge levels and then easy/medium/hard. This range of DCs means that the initial argument I joined the thread on -- that 4e PC's increase in ability is largely moot because of the increase in DCs -- still largely holds. If the GM is softballing with lower levels, then neglected skills get better, but if they hardball with higher levels, then neglected skills get worse. Same for focused skills. 5e pulled out the level selection and broke the treadmill. So, if we consider that, then 5e is like always selecting on level skills, and, here, the impact of baseline improvement shows zero impact on on level skills. You HAVE to consider lower level challenges for it to have an impact, and then, on average, it doesn't really exist. It's like playing 5e with an arbitrary (because challenge level in 4e is arbitrary) +/-2 on DCs. I think that you categorize 4e as having subjective DCs because they're selected without consideration for the fiction -- instead, the fiction is built around the DCs. So, you can elect to use DCs for their pacing effects (as one example) rather than because that what the fiction/action suggest. I don't think I'd call this "subjective" vs "objective," though. I'd call objective DCs ones that are set for a given task prior to play - like the athletics DCs in 4e, or most of the DCs in 3e. [/QUOTE]

Verification