If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?

[pemerton]

I think my suggestion will be more informative for you and for us. Traveler and Burning Wheel can only take you so far, or us, where these discussions are concerned.

I can explain to someone whose never played either, but who has some idea of what RPGing invovles, why BW won't produce a Traveller experience, and vice versa.

As per your advice upthread:

Read the rules. Try to imagine the game experience it will create when followed and the approaches needed to support it. Play it and see if you like it. Then decide if it needs changing or abandoning altogether.

I've read the rules for 5e. In the relevant respects - ie framing situations, adjudicating action declarations - I don't see any salient difference from 4e other than the advice. Which is to say, I can't see why that advice couldn't be ported into 4e, or the 4e advice ported into 5e. (Whereas it's easy to see why Traveller can't be run just by porting in BW advice, and vice versa.)

Hence my request for some more information. I appreciate that you don't want to provide it - you made that clear upthread - which is why I asked another poster with whom I feel I've been having some convivial and informative exchanges.

 

[Hussar]

I think my suggestion will be more informative for you and for us. Traveler and Burning Wheel can only take you so far, or us, where these discussions are concerned.

Well, as someone who's played both 4e and 5e pretty extensively, I can honestly say that playing 5e with a 4e player centric approach works perfectly fine for us. Playing 4e with 5e's more DM centric focus would work, although, ((I'm going to be so sorry I said this)) I think it would slow play down considerably for players to constantly have to check with their DM to make their powers work.

Or, rather, in 4e, the goal:method approach isn't really needed since the players have so much power invested in the players by the rules of the game. The rules really are quite clear about this - that the players should be the ones clearly in the drivers seat for a lot of the game. Thus players tell the DM what skill they would like to use during a skill challenge, for example and, the DM is to some degree obliged to allow it provided the table is happy.

I simply extend the same approach to 5e to be honest.

((Wow, that felt great!!))

 

[iserith]

I can explain to someone whose never played either, but who has some idea of what RPGing invovles, why BW won't produce a Traveller experience, and vice versa.

As per your advice upthread:

Read the rules. Try to imagine the game experience it will create when followed and the approaches needed to support it. Play it and see if you like it. Then decide if it needs changing or abandoning altogether.

You appear to have stopped short of my advice to "Play it and see if you like it."

But I'll leave it to Charlaquin to get into it further with you with apologies for being surly. I'll be happy to discuss D&D 5e with you in great detail if and when you ever actually play it.

Edit: Tony Vargas (who I can figure out how to summon) would also be a good source to compare the two in my view, even if his praise for D&D 5e is rather cynical and backhanded (if you ask me).

 

[iserith]

Well, as someone who's played both 4e and 5e pretty extensively, I can honestly say that playing 5e with a 4e player centric approach works perfectly fine for us. Playing 4e with 5e's more DM centric focus would work, although, ((I'm going to be so sorry I said this)) I think it would slow play down considerably for players to constantly have to check with their DM to make their powers work.

I think it would, too, and D&D 4e certainly does not need any help being slow by comparison to D&D 5e, even with players with system mastery (as mine had). In my D&D 4e games, you don't have to do that, and you're free to ask to make checks which is the expectation those rules lay out. You're also free to establish fictional details as we discussed above.

Or, rather, in 4e, the goal:method approach isn't really needed since the players have so much power invested in the players by the rules of the game. The rules really are quite clear about this - that the players should be the ones clearly in the drivers seat for a lot of the game. Thus players tell the DM what skill they would like to use during a skill challenge, for example and, the DM is to some degree obliged to allow it provided the table is happy.

Yes, those are all pretty big differences from D&D 5e which change the play experience. I love skill challenges and wrote a ton of them on the WotC forums for the community. But they just don't work with the D&D 5e paradigm in my view.

 

[Guest 6801328]

But it also goes back to who is overcoming the obstacle; the PC or the player? Some obstacles will be player challenges by their nature, I simply think some things should be PC challenges.

The more I think about this, the more I convinced there is no such thing as "challenging the character". You can challenge the player's ability to build a character, and you can challenge the player's ability to use what's on his/her character sheet, but you can't actually challenge the character.

I do acknowledge that there's one interesting thing that might fall under the category of challenging the character: I like the idea of players being encouraged to find creative solutions to problems using the strengths of their characters. But pretty much all of the examples offered by the "challenge the character" crowd don't involve creative solutions; it's all been "using a skill" to overcome challenges in pre-determined ways. Persuade the troll king. Pick the lock. Detect a lie. This is attested to by the insistence that one can simply announce "I'll roll [Skill]". As in, "The door is locked." "I'll roll Thieves' Tools."

What we don't hear is:
"The door is locked."
"I'll roll Animal Handling."

Why?

Maybe the guy has double proficiency in Animal Handling and he has a plan involving the tame weasel they found, the chimney, and the set of keys they can see through a crack in the door. (I'm winging this; bear with me.) I still don't see this as actually "challenging" the character, but it is challenging the player to use the unique assets of his character to solve problems.

On the other hand, I don't see who or what is being "challenged" by expecting the rogue to announce, "I'll roll Thieves' Tools". I mean, how obvious and un-challenging is that? You don't even need players: I could write software that could play that RPG in about 5 minutes.

Ok, back the weasel tamer: if he is going to actually implement his plan, he is going to have to offer a lot more than just "I roll Animal Handling." He is going to have to describe it to the DM, and then give the DM a pleading puppy-dog-eyes look, hoping the DM will say, "Ok, I'll need an animal handling check."

In other words, goal-and-approach. Followed by...because the outcome is uncertain...a DM call for a dice roll.

And just think of all the fun ways this could go horribly wrong on a failed check.

So maybe one reason I don't like "I use Skill X" is because if that pronouncement is enough for everybody at the table to know what you're doing, what you're doing isn't very interesting.

 

[iserith]

Frankly, the whole "challenging the character" thing deserves its own thread. It's a bogus claim that falls apart under even passing scrutiny and I'm frankly ashamed that I used to make that argument as little as 5 years ago. The hobby would be better for ridding itself of the notion.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Frankly, the whole "challenging the character" thing deserves its own thread.

Done!

 

[pemerton]

You appear to have stopped short of my advice to "Play it and see if you like it."

I'm very confident I won't like it, primarily in virtue of the differences I mentioned upthread. But as I also said, those seem orthogonal to the focus of discussion in this thread.

Well, as someone who's played both 4e and 5e pretty extensively, I can honestly say that playing 5e with a 4e player centric approach works perfectly fine for us. Playing 4e with 5e's more DM centric focus would work, although, ((I'm going to be so sorry I said this)) I think it would slow play down considerably for players to constantly have to check with their DM to make their powers work.

Although in this thread there seems to be a widespread though not universal view that combat in 5e also has a less distinctive "goal and approach" approach, for reasons that seem rather similar to what you point to here - ie a variety of pre-defined "moves" which players can activate for their PCs.

 

[pemerton]

The more I think about this, the more I convinced there is no such thing as "challenging the character". You can challenge the player's ability to build a character, and you can challenge the player's ability to use what's on his/her character sheet, but you can't actually challenge the character.

Are you making this claim particularly in relation to 5e - in which case, out of deference to [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], I won't voice any opinions - on in relation to RPGing in general? If the latter, then I'm happy to explain why I disagree.

 

[Hussar]

I'm very confident I won't like it, primarily in virtue of the differences I mentioned upthread. But as I also said, those seem orthogonal to the focus of discussion in this thread.

Although in this thread there seems to be a widespread though not universal view that combat in 5e also has a less distinctive "goal and approach" approach, for reasons that seem rather similar to what you point to here - ie a variety of pre-defined "moves" which players can activate for their PCs.

Not quite sure what you mean, but, if I'm following you, then yes, 5e combat is very much not the goal:approach method. The players call for checks in combat. The players call for virtually everything that isn't being done by an NPC. The only real point that people made contrary to that was the notion that inexperienced players might need a DM to tell the player what to roll.

Honestly, I didn't really think that that was a very good defense of goal:approach methodology. If we only use it in combat if the players don't know what they're doing, then why do we then use it out of combat when the player does know what they are doing?

Really, I think that's one of my bigger issues here. Why use different methodologies in different parts of the game for task resolution? We don't expect goal:approach in combat, so why do it out of combat? And, really, even out of combat, it's unevenly applied. Numerous skill uses are not predicated on DM adjudication - my PC can jump Str feet without a check for example. Granted, 5e is a lot more loosey goosey about this sort of thing than 3e or 4e with a lot less standardization in 5e, but, the basic premise is the same.

Essentially, I don't see what's actually being added to the game by doing the goal:approach method. It wouldn't add anything to my game and would in fact be incredibly frustrating to my players if I insisted upon it. I get that with new players it is a better way of doing it - and it really fits with the whole DM empowerment thing that 5e preaches. What better way to control the game than to be able to control exactly when any player can do anything that doesn't involve swinging a sword?

I'm just not interested in that level of DM empowerment.