How many "steps" is too many?

[Ruin Explorer]

Ostensibly any of those modifiers would apply to any sequence, so it is a wash. That's why I did not bring it up. It isn't "misleading" it is irrelevent to the question asked.

I don't think that's quite true, because you're not just looking at D&D's resolution, where you could kinda make that argument, you're attempting to compare system-on-system, and when you do that, you do need to look a bit deeper to determine how resolution works.

Like, in both systems, you could have Advantage/Disadvantage, but only in D&D 5E do you have this bizarre extraneous rules element of "cover", which seems frankly like an alien artefact in the middle of 5E's otherwise-reliable systems. Cover is absolutely not a modifier that could apply to any resolution in D&D. It applies solely to ranged attacks, and it makes them more complicated and mechanically different to other attacks, for no apparent reason or real gain that I can figure - maybe it's a clumsy attempt to balance them, but if so it clearly fails. I tend to think Cover penalties (some of the only straight-up fixed numerical bonuses and penalties you can find in D&D 5E) are a just a Sacred Cow.

 

[Reynard]

I don't think that's quite true, because you're not just looking at D&D's resolution, where you could kinda make that argument, you're attempting to compare system-on-system, and when you do that, you do need to look a bit deeper to determine how resolution works.

No I am not. Those were just examples. In a theoretical system with X steps, there is likely to be Y circumstantial elements regardless of how big X is. That is to say, if we add steps for checking for circumstance modifiers, that number of steps will be the same regardless as long as we are talking about some theoretical system.

We can talk about systems in contrast with one another, but I think we would find that folks get wildly different numbers of "steps" because what one considers a "step" will vary. For example, you started off by saying checking for fear vs hope is a step. I completely disagree, having played the game and watch AoU. Folks take a legitimate step to figure that out, no matter how easy it should be.

If, for example, the people engaging in this thread we to define for themselves the number of steps in a D&D combat round attack action, we would still get a wide swath of answers. I am not sure that is helpful to the subject, which is about what individuals consider onerous.

 

[Koloth]

In many game systems, the basic attack can quickly become complex. Take OP's basic attack of: roll to hit, compare to AC, roll damage, apply damage. That can become for some versions: Roll to hit, compare to AC, Did you hit a mirror image or the wizard?, roll for that, either an image winks out or, does your weapon bypass wizard's DR?, If yes apply full damage else do DR subtraction, if damage positive, apply. And subtract 1 from remaining wizard images.

Conditional complexity can really slow a game down because participants are often not as familiar with how it works. A trip to the rule book to look up Mirror Image can slow a game down.

Summoners can be really bad about turning a simple 4v4 encounter into a 10+ v 10+ if both sides have summon abilities. Summoned critters often have spell/abilities the group isn't familiar with so more trips to the rule books.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If, for example, the people engaging in this thread we to define for themselves the number of steps in a D&D combat round attack action, we would still get a wide swath of answers. I am not sure that is helpful to the subject, which is about what individuals consider onerous.

I think it is though, because you use a D&D attack as an example, but because 5E decided to be weird, we do in fact have to ask "is there cover on the attack" in 5E as a step if we're playing RAW.

In practice, I would say most people ignore that concern unless someone is intentionally trying to use cover, or the DM really doesn't want you to hit their precious NPC (ahem), but it is a step, and a weird alien step that doesn't fit with the rest of D&D's resolution.

Like a skill resolution in D&D is much reliably straightforward - it'll always be d20 + modifier vs DC, succeed or fail, you're done.

But in combat for whatever reason, D&D insists cover must extraneous-ass modifier that you have to consider, RAW. I mean are we going RAW/RAI or "how people actually play it" - I guess that's another question. And I think it kind of points to how it's not the number of steps that leads to onerous/not onerous, it's what those steps are - and cover generally seems extraneous, so typically is a step that gets skipped.

To be clear, "circumstance modifiers" that aren't Advantage or Disadvantage (or the DM picking a different DC) are NOT A THING in D&D 5E. They don't exist. Except cover. So there's no general category to which cover belongs. It is unique weird thing that 5E combat inexplicably insists upon.

 

[Elvish Lore]

Cortext Prime thinks 5e and Daggerheart are total amateurs. And writing this all out, it's maybe a good reason I've come to loathe Cortex.

1. Roll the dice: Roll all the dice in the assembled pool ( based on their relevant traits. Traits are typically grouped into sets like Attributes and Skills, but can also include elements like Values or Relationships, depending on the game setup. The character takes one die from each applicable trait set, as well as any other relevant traits or assets. It takes a while to assemble this pool!)
2. Resolve 1s (optional): Some variations of Cortex Prime may involve resolving natural 1s on the dice as potential complications.
3. Spend Plot Points (optional): Before determining the result, a character can spend Plot Points to reroll dice or include additional dice in the total.
4. Choose dice for the total: Select two dice from the rolled results and add their values together to form the action's total.
5. Choose an Effect die (if applicable): If the action is intended to have an effect on the environment or another character (such as in combat), choose a third die from the results to be the effect die.
6. Compare to target or opponent: The total is compared to a static difficulty determined by the Game Master, or to an opponent's opposing roll.
7. Determine success and consequences:
   • Success: If the character's total is higher than the target or opposing roll, they succeed.
   • Degrees of Success (optional): Some interpretations of the system offer ways to determine various degrees of success based on the roll.
   • Effect: If applicable, the chosen effect die determines the magnitude or nature of the action's effect.

 

[Emberashh]

I think this is missing the forest for the trees. The actual issue is the user experience; if its good and well tuned it really doesn't matter how many steps there are to whatever.

Its very much the difference between the qualitative and the quantitative, and former is a more productive thing to discuss.

 

[Reynard]

I think this is missing the forest for the trees. The actual issue is the user experience; if its good and well tuned it really doesn't matter how many steps there are to whatever.

Its very much the difference between the qualitative and the quantitative, and former is a more productive thing to discuss.

Go on, then.

 

[Reynard]

To be clear, "circumstance modifiers" that aren't Advantage or Disadvantage (or the DM picking a different DC) are NOT A THING in D&D 5E. They don't exist. Except cover. So there's no general category to which cover belongs. It is unique weird thing that 5E combat inexplicably insists upon.

Except potential circumstance modifiers based on the target's traits, abilities, etc. Is the target affected by protection from evil? Or has Shield prepared? Etc. What "step" is checking for the myriad potential modifiers from the exception based design?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Except potential circumstance modifiers based on the target's traits, abilities, etc. Is the target affected by protection from evil? Or has Shield prepared? Etc. What "step" is checking for the myriad potential modifiers from the exception based design?

None of those are circumstance modifiers by definition. They're spells and abilities. We can exclude spells and abilities sure, but if a system insists on checking for actual circumstance modifiers on every attack, that is a step/check.

The Basics :: d20srd.org

Circumstance Modifier​

A circumstance bonus (or penalty) arises from specific conditional factors impacting the success of the task at hand. Circumstance bonuses stack with all other bonuses, including other circumstance bonuses, unless they arise from essentially the same source.

Emphasis mine.

5E has only one that isn't Advantage/Disadvantage - Cover. It's a needless and onerous or at least clunky addition that usually gets ignored.

 

[RenleyRenfield]

Interesting example. This may be an example of how each of us processes things differently. My group convinced me to run a Mage: The Ascension game. I had a very difficult time grokking the rules. I absolutely hated how the book was organized and how the rules were written. I noped out of it after two sessions. I've run many systems of various levels of complexity and there has been no game yet that I've run that I enjoyed running less than Mage: The Ascension.

Well, in your favor = i was not talking about Mage the Ascension...
You see, that is "old world of darkness", not "new world of darkness" and the rules are different. Nothing in my post applies to Ascension, Masquerade, or Apocalypse, etc.

New world of darkness agrees with you = that Old world of darkness is clunky, overly complicated, and too fussy and vague.

In nWoD = they made it how I stated =

• always add to your pool by counting dots
• difficulties reduce that pool
• roll and count successes
• done

They even went so far as to make the game 'one roll resolves' , so no (or very rare) opposed or counter or sequential rolls ever. That also helped a lot!

...

Side note: to discuss why Mage the Awakening is the far far far better rules than Ascension was, and much more easy to play is a whole other discussion or PM if you are really interested.
again, I am not referring to the "2E" versions of those nWoD games, which ruin the simplicity of the system sadly...