D&D (2024) Not enough DMs / new edition

[bedir than]

You misunderstand.


I am saying, level means the same thing for both character sheets and statblocks.

level 3 statblock = level 3 character sheet
level 3 character sheet = level 3 statblock

The main difference is, if using a statblock (or a character sheet) for a combat encounter against the player characters, then the nonplayer statblock (or character sheet) gains a hit point boost.



I do that. I always say a "slot 3 spell" rather than the ambiguous "level 3 spell".

There's no indication that they are going to ignore backwards compatibility to change the system the way you want.

I think what's likely to make DMing easier is the change in layout and structure they indicate is coming in the DMG.

Starting the DMG with gods and pantheons and creating a whole new world was a horrible idea that isn't getting repeated.

 

[Clint_L]

Not sure if you realized it, but that's actually how it used to be done. I was apprenticed for 6 months learning to DM 1E, and I've always been on the lookout for prospective DMs to tutor. While I don't think it should be required, I do see advantages in it.

This is still how it is done, a lot of the time. In D&D Club, experienced players are helped to create their own campaigns, while my campaign is for newbies, with the expectation that, when the time comes, they will graduate to their own campaigns and I will take on a new batch of kids.

That's how I learned back in the day, too. My friends college-aged brother brought me into some of their games, and then I started running my own with my peer group. In more than four decades of D&D, Estimate that I have been the DM in at least 90% of them.

Though I would love to just be able to be a player more often.

 

[Yaarel]

There's no indication that they are going to ignore backwards compatibility to change the system the way you want.

I think what's likely to make DMing easier is the change in layout and structure they indicate is coming in the DMG.

Starting the DMG with gods and pantheons and creating a whole new world was a horrible idea that isn't getting repeated.

They can do both. The statblock can title with the level, while listing CR with XP below.

I dont use XP anymore, and wouldnt use CR either. But for those who do, it is still there for convenient reference.

 

[tetrasodium]

You misunderstand.


I am saying, level means the same thing for both character sheets and statblocks.

level 3 statblock = level 3 character sheet
level 3 character sheet = level 3 statblock

The main difference is, if using a statblock (or a character sheet) for a combat encounter against the player characters, then the nonplayer statblock (or character sheet) gains a hit point boost.



Pitting the players against a creature of lower level but more hit points, helps stabilize the predictability of the outcome.



I do that. I always say a "slot 3 spell" rather than the ambiguous "level 3 spell".

That is not a difficulty at all for the gm. It would go much further to simply correct the poorly set expectation described in

Spoiler: this video

Backing away from efforts to force ONETRUEWAY onto the GM by refilling the GM's toolkit with once present tools to give them options would as well (ie everything stripped away in order to leave disadvantage/advantage as the only tool) would as well.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

Does anybody know if Passive checks are still a thing in the new books? Because in my experience they’re nice in theory but don’t really work at the table. I feel like they’re better suited to CRPGs than TTRPGs, at least as written.

The game without passive checks would become a slog where player agency is trampled on repeatedly.

A hypothetical for a moment. A PC is riding on a wagon in a caravan. That PC is polishing their weapon, as the player said. The DM asks that player, or all players, for a perception check due to an upcoming encounter, let's say an ambush.

Here we stop for a moment. This is forcing player action by DM fiat. The DM is forcing the player's character to "look" for something. The player was clear where the PC's attention was. The PC was not trying to sense anything, and should not roll here. Calling for a roll from this player is stepping on the player's agency.

Passive checks simply avoid the above. They allow a seamless, quick way to reference a "baseline" skill. They allow us to shortcut around the tediousness of everyone finding, rolling, and reading off the results everytime anything could possibly come up. Secret door? Group skill check. Inscription on a vase? Group skill check.

In a world without passives, everytime there is a possibility of something, we'd be finding, rolling, and reading the results. Every room a new group roll. Every whim a new group roll. And player choice would be limited in consequence, as they'd always roll for everything.

It is not the DM's job, nor should it be, to decide when a player actively does something, and passives allow us to avoid that. The game runs much smoother when you presume passive scores, and only ask for rolls in response to a player actively doing something.

 

[tetrasodium]

The game without passive checks would become a slog where player agency is trampled on repeatedly.

A hypothetical for a moment. A PC is riding on a wagon in a caravan. That PC is polishing their weapon, as the player said. The DM asks that player, or all players, for a perception check due to an upcoming encounter, let's say an ambush.

Here we stop for a moment. This is forcing player action by DM fiat. The DM is forcing the player's character to "look" for something. The player was clear where the PC's attention was. The PC was not trying to sense anything, and should not roll here. Calling for a roll from this player is stepping on the player's agency.

Passive checks simply avoid the above. They allow a seamless, quick way to reference a "baseline" skill. They allow us to shortcut around the tediousness of everyone finding, rolling, and reading off the results everytime anything could possibly come up. Secret door? Group skill check. Inscription on a vase? Group skill check.

In a world without passives, everytime there is a possibility of something, we'd be finding, rolling, and reading the results. Every room a new group roll. Every whim a new group roll. And player choice would be limited in consequence, as they'd always roll for everything.

It is not the DM's job, nor should it be, to decide when a player actively does something, and passives allow us to avoid that. The game runs much smoother when you presume passive scores, and only ask for rolls in response to a player actively doing something.

"what's [everyone/Bob]'s passive perception" already makes it clear that there is something

 

[Reynard]

"what's [everyone/Bob]'s passive perception" already makes it clear that there is something

You know, that's something the GM could write down so they didn't have to tip their hand every time...

 

[Cadence]

The game without passive checks would become a slog where player agency is trampled on repeatedly.

A hypothetical for a moment. A PC is riding on a wagon in a caravan. That PC is polishing their weapon, as the player said. The DM asks that player, or all players, for a perception check due to an upcoming encounter, let's say an ambush.

Here we stop for a moment. This is forcing player action by DM fiat. The DM is forcing the player's character to "look" for something. The player was clear where the PC's attention was. The PC was not trying to sense anything, and should not roll here. Calling for a roll from this player is stepping on the player's agency.

Passive checks simply avoid the above. They allow a seamless, quick way to reference a "baseline" skill. They allow us to shortcut around the tediousness of everyone finding, rolling, and reading off the results everytime anything could possibly come up. Secret door? Group skill check. Inscription on a vase? Group skill check.

In a world without passives, everytime there is a possibility of something, we'd be finding, rolling, and reading the results. Every room a new group roll. Every whim a new group roll. And player choice would be limited in consequence, as they'd always roll for everything.

It is not the DM's job, nor should it be, to decide when a player actively does something, and passives allow us to avoid that. The game runs much smoother when you presume passive scores, and only ask for rolls in response to a player actively doing something.

Why would the person totally focusing on their sword polishing even get a passive perception check to notice something? I thought that would be what the people actually on lookout for a long period of time would get?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think there's every chance that the DMG will be a very good book for once, which certainly can't hurt the growth of more DMs.

While I sympathize with those who have, I've never experienced a lack of DMs. But that might be because I'm personally very happy to do it!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Why would the person totally focusing on their sword polishing even get a passive perception check to notice something? I thought that would be what the people actually on lookout for a long period of time would get?

That's one of the drawbacks to it being called "passive" - people tend to think that it's the result you get while not even trying to be looking around. When it probably ought to be seen as closer to a "take 10" search check - it's the average you get when actively on the lookout over time.

What's in a name? That which we call garbage by any other name would smell.