D&D 5E Justin Alexander's review of Shattered Obelisk is pretty scathing

[Lanefan]

I did not say they were caused by character level.

I said something that would tell you a DC that would be an easy, medium, or hard check for a given character level.

The character's level does not cause the check to be anything. But if you need a DC, and you know that it is already supposed to be hard, then it is supremely useful to have a reference for what "a hard DC" should be. You already know the DC is hard. The table just tells you what the number should be, so that that known difficulty is achieved reasonably.

Most GMs must by trial and error kludge together a mental list for this. They know that a check should be hard, but us 15 hard? Is it ridiculously easy or effectively unwinnable? They must slowly memorize it by, in brief, screwing it up enough times first. It is one of the ongoing tragedies of TTRPG design that people vilify a written list of such things, which would let fresh GMs (or even just forgetful ones, hello hi how are you) focus their attention on the more interesting parts of GMing.

If characters' skills grow in power, then a difficult check for a high level character should be more difficult than that for a low level character. Hence, level matters for the meaning of "difficult check." That doesn't mean level causes a check to be difficult.

I think the counter-point being made is that the difficulty of a task should be absolute, and independent of the character who is trying to do it.

In other words, you don't measure difficulty in relation to the characters, you measure difficulty in relation to other similar tasks and let the numbers fall where they may. What this means in practice is that when writing an adventure for higher-level types you-as-author need to explain why these tasks are more difficult than similar tasks would be elsewhere (e.g. why climbing this sheer cliff is DC 25 when that very similar cliff we met last year was only DC 15). Otherwise you've lost touch with realism.

 

[billd91]

In 5E, with bounded accuracy, that is largely the case. But bounded accuracy is a relatively new idea.

Another principle is that the environment should scale with the player. A "locked door" is expected to be a "more well locked door" at 10'th level than at 5'th level.

This was more pronounced in prior editions. Although tangentially applicable (ACs vs DCs), I find it to be especially prevalent in the escalation of ACs in 1E (and largely continued until 5E), where natural armor is added to monster AC's to match players to-hit abilities. This is visible in the progression of the G-D module series, which grants players ever escalating bonuses (via drow equipment) while also escalating the ACs of creatures which don't wear armor (magical beasts, demons and devils, dragons, and so forth) to match the players bigger numbers.

My sense is that bounded accuracy evolved as an idea is a way to oppose this sort of arbitrary level based bonus escalation.

TomB

I'd argue that the scaling environment was NOT more pronounced in earlier editions. In 1e/2e, characters got better at things like picking locks, but the locks largely remained static. I certainly didn't encounter a lot of situations where a thief's Open Locks skill was modified by a tougher lock as they rose in levels. The expectation was more that their skills would improve.
In 1e/2e, saving throw chances improved with the character making the save with only a few instances of penalties being applied to create a higher level adversary (drow poison being a notable example). Otherwise, spells of higher level casters tended to fail more often than lower level ones against an increasingly high level opponent (or PC party). The target numbers saving throws were pretty strictly bound to a 20 point range.
Even AC was typically bounded by that 20 point range in 1e/2e. There may have been a few higher level opponents where the AC got into negative territory, but usually not far. 1e red dragons topped (bottomed?) out at -1. 1e Pit fiends got to -3 (the equivalent of 23 in current terms, a bit better than its current 19). I remember that hitting for fighters really wasn't much of an issue at moderately high levels. By 10th level, with a decent strength bonus (from natural, gauntlet, or girdle), a +2 or +3 weapon, that fighter was hitting AC0 on a 5 or better, so that red dragon on a 6, the pit fiend on an 8. It was only once 3e came along that the lid was ripped off and the natural armor bonus appeared to get monster ACs growing at a similar pace as expected PC attack bonuses.
The scaling of target (AC/DC) to the character was far more characteristic of 3e and 4e as prior editions, much less of 1e/2e.

 

[nevin]

I think the counter-point being made is that the difficulty of a task should be absolute, and independent of the character who is trying to do it.

In other words, you don't measure difficulty in relation to the characters, you measure difficulty in relation to other similar tasks and let the numbers fall where they may. What this means in practice is that when writing an adventure for higher-level types you-as-author need to explain why these tasks are more difficult than similar tasks would be elsewhere (e.g. why climbing this sheer cliff is DC 25 when that very similar cliff we met last year was only DC 15). Otherwise you've lost touch with realism.

exactly there is the problem with the DC matching the level of the PCs that if the characters turn left at Albaquercky the DM now has to lower the lockpicking DC on that room in Orcus's lair because it's all supposed to be Fair and samey right? And I've played with DM's that do it that way. It's not cool. You turn left and you fight orcus at 5th level and can actually defeat him and then when you come back and turn right that stupid local lord that was supposed to be a difficult level 3 encounter is now a mythic encounter. No thanks. While a I do want the DM to challenge me, I don't want that samey wamey lame game. I'll go home and watch bad scifi at least it will be entertaining.

 

[billd91]

I don't believe that the so-called "Mercer effect," in that negative sense that is sometimes alluded to, is real. There are apocryphal stories, like "Karen" stories, but I don't think very many folks are actually dumb enough to see a bunch of professionals doing something and then become disillusioned because they and their friends aren't instantly as good at it. I think someone invented the "Mercer effect" as another reason to complain about why Critical Role hurts their feelings.

Imagine if someone watched an NBA game, asked if they could join your pickup game, and then stormed off the court because the quality of play wasn't nearly as good.

We don't talk about the "LeBron James effect" or the "Marie Currie" effect. People are generally way too smart for such foolishness. And the few that aren't...well, they weren't going to be players you would want in your game, anyway, because they'd just be complaining about something else soon enough.

Normally, I'd say that it's because playing an RPG looks easy. It's sitting around slinging dice, right. That's easy! And, in truth, it's not as hard as playing as well as LeBron James or discovering new elements and devising an atomic theory of radioactivity. But it IS harder than it looks to role play at their level, comfortably, consistently, without a lot of experience that you can watch them gain in the 8 years they've been putting out videos.
Normally, we have a much better assessment of our ability to operate in difficult environments, particularly when we have little experience with them.

Normally.
Then I see polls where there are some people who think they can actually win a bare handed fight with a bear or lion and I don't know what the hell to make of people like that.

 

[Retreater]

Great! What games do you play instead of 5e then? And what's your motivation for complaining about WotC? Mine is mostly nostalgia-tinged spite.

Games better than 5e (just that I've played somewhat recently)...
Traveller
Pathfinder 2e
Call of Cthulhu
Dragonbane
Savage Worlds Adventurer Edition
Vaesen
Forbidden Lands
Old School Essentials
Castles and Crusades

As to why I complain...
1) 5e is THE major TTRPG to talk about online. If I'm going to engage with anyone online, watch any videos, read any blogs, it's 99% 5e material. 2) The 2024 update is coming. I hold out a fool's hope that maybe some of my complaints will get addressed.
3) Sunk cost. I've bought a lot of material. I keep hoping that maybe there's some way I can actually use this material.
4) My players really want to play 5e. I'd like to give them what they want if I can figure it out.
5) D&D is my gaming home. I'd like to find some way to make it work.
6) It's enjoyable to see major companies stumble with their releases while rooting for the underdogs.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

exactly there is the problem with the DC matching the level of the PCs that if the characters turn left at Albaquercky the DM now has to lower the lockpicking DC on that room in Orcus's lair because it's all supposed to be Fair and samey right? And I've played with DM's that do it that way. It's not cool. You turn left and you fight orcus at 5th level and can actually defeat him and then when you come back and turn right that stupid local lord that was supposed to be a difficult level 3 encounter is now a mythic encounter. No thanks. While a I do want the DM to challenge me, I don't want that samey wamey lame game. I'll go home and watch bad scifi at least it will be entertaining.

This. The world shouldn’t change to match the PCs. The PCs should be exploring the world and discovering some areas are way over their pay grade… for now.

 

[nevin]

Normally, I'd say that it's because playing an RPG looks easy. It's sitting around slinging dice, right. That's easy! And, in truth, it's not as hard as playing as well as LeBron James or discovering new elements and devising an atomic theory of radioactivity. But it IS harder than it looks to role play at their level, comfortably, consistently, without a lot of experience that you can watch them gain in the 8 years they've been putting out videos.
Normally, we have a much better assessment of our ability to operate in difficult environments, particularly when we have little experience with them.

Normally.
Then I see polls where there are some people who think they can actually win a bare handed fight with a bear or lion and I don't know what the hell to make of people like that.

What I think the mercer effect has done is create two groups that make everything hard. One thinks all games worth playing should look like his professional planned out game with professional actors. One group thinks that if they can't do it that well they won't even try. I listened recently to a senior gamer who's been playing since 2nd edition rant about how he'd neve play a bard because he can't actually play an instrument or be that charismatic.

I do wonder if the Mercer effect at some point will start shrinking the game audience because all the newbies expect it to be that good. The game might be better off at that point.

 

[nevin]

This. The world shouldn’t change to match the PCs. The PCs should be exploring the world and discovering some areas are way over their pay grade… for now.

and occasionally just kicking some warlords but when he attacks a town because they happened to be vacationing there. Hero's should get to be total bad asses some times.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think the counter-point being made is that the difficulty of a task should be absolute, and independent of the character who is trying to do it.

That's what I'm saying. It is absolute. You're just using their level as an index. It's not causative.

In other words, you don't measure difficulty in relation to the characters, you measure difficulty in relation to other similar tasks and let the numbers fall where they may. What this means in practice is that when writing an adventure for higher-level types you-as-author need to explain why these tasks are more difficult than similar tasks would be elsewhere (e.g. why climbing this sheer cliff is DC 25 when that very similar cliff we met last year was only DC 15). Otherwise you've lost touch with realism.

Yes. I literally said so. "You know that it is already supposed to be hard."

The table does not give you justifications. It is there only once you have justifications, and you need to know what number lines up with those justifications.

This isn't complicated. You only pick a DC when you know that the task is supposed to be difficult for its context!

This is like saying that giving monsters numbered CRs is causing them to be hard. No! Exactly the reverse! We know the monster must be hard, and so we figure out what numbers that is meant to represent, and then assign a number to communicate that difficulty. That's what the DC table is for. It does not tell you, "When the party is level 24, every single hard check should be X value." That's lunacy! Instead, it tells you, "Oh, you've decided that you need a hard check, in the context that your level 24 character is facing? Alright. A level 24 character would find X value hard."

The table only comes into play when you already know what you need conceptually, you just need to give it a number so the mechanics can fire. It is literally exactly the same as a GM inventing numbers on the fly by having a really really good intuitive sense of how challenging the Lair of the Demon-Saint should be.

 

[Ancalagon]

Honestly, I feel that 5e's track record for Adventures has been pretty good. Sure, many of them have serious problems. But as someone who played (for example) ALL of 4e's adventures, where (in the end) I think the only good one was Gardmore Abbey. The rest ranged from Meh to terrible (like much worse than any 5e one). 4e fans - tell me if I'm forgetting any good ones!

3e, IIRC, had Forge of Fury, Red Hand of Doom, and Sunlit Citadel... and? The rest were pretty bad, BY WotC, at least! Paizo was just getting started becoming what they are today - and at the time made much better adventures than WotC did. (Again, let me know if I'm forgetting anything).

I didn't even run published adventures before that because I HATED them. I've grown fond of a few of the classics more recently, though.

5e ones are "okay" - I don't think we've hit the age of really good "official" adventures yet. Someday we will. I live in hope.

To be fair, my knowledge of published adventures between 2e (where I used a bunch) and 5e is very slim, so I can't really comment on that.