New Legends and Lore:Difficulty Class Warfare

[Crazy Jerome]

I fully understand the "Mother may I" problem that comes with bad GMing but it's a problem with the GM not the game - unless you want to play a boardgame by "the rules".

I don't much care for "Mother may I" rules, usually. But my main problem with them is that they are pure fiat, and thus the players don't know what will work until they ask, and that means they are always asking. That is, even if you have a good DM, "Mother may I " rules can still be a pain.

However, I don't see much of this proposal as "Mother may I," but rather see it as, "You must be this tall." Your six year old can't go on the rollercoaster that requires he be 52 inches tall, but it isn't because the guy checking the tickets has that requirement. And the requirement is clear and easy for the six year old to grasp.

I see difficulty ratings by novice, journeyman, etc. as the same way. The only judgment is back to the DM deciding on borderline, new cases, where they fit in the rating scheme. This is the kind of judgment that a good consistent DM can take advantage of, because over time the players will know most of the time what will work and what won't. As you said, that is the heart of those small negotiations that the DM will have to do one way or the other anyway.

 

[Markn]

For me, the system has merit. I also really like the idea of using the categories from novice to grandmaster (as it evokes memories of nostalgia).

However, I would like to see further play examples to get a true meaning of how this would work. If the PCs had to climb a cliff that required journeyman level climbing and only 3 of 5 players had that rank, how would the other two handle the situation.

I would like to see more from Mr. Mearls on this solution.

 

[P1NBACK]

If the PCs had to climb a cliff that required journeyman level climbing and only 3 of 5 players had that rank, how would the other two handle the situation.

"You guys wait here. We'll climb up and set a rope for you use."

After all, climbing a rope is a Novice task compared to climbing a Journeyman cliff.

 

[Falstaff]

I was originally interested in following these articles. but then, the article before GenCon Mearls said something along the lines of "with all that in mind...", as in "keep everything I've been talking about in these Legends & Lore articles in mind" and come to our product announcement preview panel. From that I thought he was telling us that "hey, we're gonna announce products based on what I've been talking about in these articles". But that didn't happen. I realize now that I was wrong to assume that, but still I felt cheated.

 

[vagabundo]

For me, the system has merit. I also really like the idea of using the categories from novice to grandmaster (as it evokes memories of nostalgia).

<snip>
I would like to see more from Mr. Mearls on this solution.

Me too, when I read "this cliffwill require journeyman training in climb" I get a little trill. It is reminding me of the Lone Wolf Adventure books I read as a kid.!!



Moar pls Mr Mearls...

 

[Markn]

"You guys wait here. We'll climb up and set a rope for you use."

After all, climbing a rope is a Novice task compared to climbing a Journeyman cliff.

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Orc Horde is gaining on you, this cliff is in your way. You must climb it to escape.

There is a time pressure and there is a consequence to failing this or delaying this.

 

[Stoat]

I'd add one more level of granularity to the system:

Below your level: Automatically succeed.
Equal to your level: Make a check at DC X to succeed.
One step above your level: Make a check at DC X+5 to succeed.
Two steps or more above your level: Automatically fail.

 

[Gundark]

Two things:

1) I can see a system like this causing major arguments: the DM declares a difficulty of X, the player is adamant it should be Y (because at X he has no chance to succeed, while at Y he at least gets to roll).

I get what you're saying, I just don't really see the difference between this hypothetical skill system and what we have currently. Arguments are still as likely to erupt over DCs, the DM says that it’s a DC 25 and the player argues it should be a 20. For this situation the DC 25 could just be just as out of reach. It’s really just the same thing.

 

[Gundark]

well, now we know he is spittballing.

Not thrilled. A lot of solution for not much of a problem.

I will admit I had hoped that he had more of a focus than it appears that he has.

I agree this seems to be like you said "A lot of solution for not much of a problem". Especially when there are bigger fish to fry as far as D&D goes.

 

[Dedekind]

I get what you're saying, I just don't really see the difference between this hypothetical skill system and what we have currently. Arguments are still as likely to erupt over DCs, the DM says that it’s a DC 25 and the player argues it should be a 20. For this situation the DC 25 could just be just as out of reach. It’s really just the same thing.

I agree that arguments will still happen. But these levels are all absolutes and I think that might prevent some arguments. If the DM says something is Journeyman than it is Journeyman. A player would have to argue that it was Novice instead and J and N are very far apart.

This system does kinda kill my "floating +2" practice. I tend to give out +2s for some checks if players do certain actions. For example, helping granny across the street might improve a subsequent Streetwise check, talking with granny about her days as a little girl might improve a subsequent Local History check, and being a good sport when granny says a prayer over your head might help with a Religion check. (If granny turns out to be a Night Hag, do you get a -2 on Insight checks for being gullible?)