D&D 5E Randomness and D&D

[James Gasik]

The game probably should have a rule that says something like "if bonus is X and DC is Y, the check succeeds". This would speed up play immensely. People can and do perform many things daily that would require a skill check, but they become so routine that the chance of failure drops to fractions of a percent.

I mean, let's look at driving a car. When you first start to drive, the combination of remembering which pedal to press, being alert of the road ahead, drivers around you, possible road hazards, using turn signals, watching your speed and gas gauge, staying in the center of your lane, all while zipping around at speeds Olympic sprinters can only dream of while merely going around the block in a residential neighborhood, is insane to contemplate- yet many people manage to do this routinely.

In fact, for most of us, these actions are so automatic, that we can do it and even carry on a conversation with passengers in the car!

But in D&D, every time you get in a car there's at least a flat 5% chance that you fail, no matter who you are. And what form does that failure make? Was it a failure to make a turn signal, or to come to a complete stop? Did you veer slightly from the center of your lane, or any number of minor mishaps that don't necessarily mean disaster?

Judging from my personal experience alone, the D&D model would probably be that there's a 5% chance that every time you get behind the wheel you'll have an accident that risks life and limb, lol.

Simply put, tasks that are performed often get easier over time. 5e's timeline for this is glacial. The idea that you have to wait 4 levels (as a first level character) to get 5% better at your proficient skills is insane.

Ordinary people most likely would not hit this milestone in their lifetime! I mean, think about what this would mean if the game world actually ran on these rules! If most people have ability scores of around 10 (and a 12 somewhere, taking racial modifiers into account), and proficiency only grants a +2 for their lifetime, then even a check with a target number of 5 has a failure rate of 15% (10% if your best ability score comes into play)!

That seems like a huge margin for error, especially given that most jobs require more than one kind of ability check to perform, and worse, there's no chance of most people ever getting better at their jobs than they started off with!

Now sure, obviously, D&D is not meant to simulate reality. But at the same time, insisting on huge margins for failure for PC's, when we have to assume this doesn't hold true for NPC's (or the world would quickly come to a crashing halt) really detracts from the "role-playing" side of the role-playing game.

 

[DND_Reborn]

The game probably should have a rule that says something like "if bonus is X and DC is Y, the check succeeds". This would speed up play immensely. People can and do perform many things daily that would require a skill check, but they become so routine that the chance of failure drops to fractions of a percent.

There is in the DMG (p.239):

But in D&D, every time you get in a car there's at least a flat 5% chance that you fail, no matter who you are. And what form does that failure make? Was it a failure to make a turn signal, or to come to a complete stop? Did you veer slightly from the center of your lane, or any number of minor mishaps that don't necessarily mean disaster?

This is the part of 5E that in a strange way, I both love and hate...

Every time you get in your car to drive someplace, there is a very significant consequence to failure... you could get in an accident and die or kill someone else. There are also lesser consequences of failure. You could get a flat tire because you ran over something. And so on.

Now, many DMs might say unless there is a reason why a check would be needed: driving at high speeds, bad weather, high traffic, or whatever which might cause you to perform less than your normal levels, you shouldn't call for a check.

Simply put, tasks that are performed often get easier over time. 5e's timeline for this is glacial. The idea that you have to wait 4 levels (as a first level character) to get 5% better at your proficient skills is insane.

Yes and no. I have PCs with skills they have never used in game so how much should those improve? Do we assume PCs are practicing these skills outside of the game? During downtime? Around the camp fire at night on the road?

I worked on a system for 5E for improve proficiencies with each level. The basic idea is you get 3 (or so) proficiency points IIRC, which you can used to improve any proficiency bonus by +1 (no more than one increase per level), to a maximum of +6. Now, if you want to keep things more "modest", cap it at the next bonus until you reach 5th level.

For example, let's say your 1st level PC has the following proficiencies:
Simple Weapons, Martial Weapons, Athletics, Nature, Perception, Stealth, Survival, Navigator's tools, and Vehicles (Water).

When you reach second level, you increase your proficiency bonus in Martials Weapons, Athletics, and Stealth to +3, while the others remain at +2. At 3rd level, you cannot increase those again so increase Simple Weapons, Nature, and Perception. And so forth.

 

[Krachek]

Are we in a OneDnd playtest thread?
Because some take a 1 in abilty check as a failure, which is not the case in the current rules.

The Phb also tell that the DM call for a roll when the outcome is uncertain. If the DM consider the action obviously a success or an impossible thing, he can skip to ask for a roll.

DnD is also a world of magic, once a DM commit for a DC, clever party can manage the get magic at work, an sometimes get an unexpected huge bonus.

and after some thought, I aim for as much randomness as we see in professional sport results.

 

[overgeeked]

There is in the DMG (p.239):

No one reads the DMG.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Something Reynard said got me to thinking. When I first started playing D&D, random chance was king. What ability scores did you roll? Did you get a 17 instead of a 16? These things could make a world of difference when determining what you could play, and how effective you would be.

If your DM rolled treasure randomly, a humble treasure chest could pay out in potions of healing or a longsword +3; the original "loot boxes", if you will.

Even some magic items and spells were slot machines; what did I get from my Bag of Beans? What card did I draw from the Deck of Many Things? Did my Prismatic Spray nuke the dungeon boss, or was it a colorful dud? Even the basic game mechanics, did I hit? How much damage did I do? Did I make my save?

Often, it proved that it was better to be lucky than good.

Over time though, D&D campaigns evolved to have ongoing plotlines and became much more than the Rogue-like and Diablo-esque games that it inspired. Some groups began to shun randomness, because it could turn an enjoyable story into a total disaster. Not only did some players reject pure randomness, but even some games did (I'll shill Amber Diceless Roleplaying here as an example).

I often see people who desire more randomness and less at loggerheads about what they feel is "fun". The arguments about monster critical hits a few months ago touched up on this, with a majority of voices seeming to feel that the game would suffer immensely if there wasn't a constant (if low level) threat of being instantly knocked down by a powerful monster's lucky hit.

5e, from the very beginning, however, catered to a "less random" approach to the game. Monsters were presented with average damage totals to speed play. Players could opt to not roll hit dice, instead taking a set amount of hit points on level up. Even rolling for ability scores has changed; while still the first option presented, most groups seem to have switched to point buy, and, of course, ever since the year 2000, the difference between a 16 and a 17 has become largely academic. You no longer need certain ability scores to qualify for a class (even though you are still rewarded in other ways for higher ability scores), with the notable exception of multiclassing.

Feats no longer have ability score requirements (though some armor and weapons do demand a certain amount of Strength to use, but at the same time, you can build a perfectly viable character without a high Strength just as well).

A lot of debates have occurred not just on whether or not D&D should be random at all, but to what extent it should be random. How likely should players succeed at die rolls, for example. Many of the complaints about the game's math really come down to "it's too random" vs. "it's not random enough".

So how do you feel about this? How much randomness do you want in a game? Do you hate it when a named, powerful NPC goes down due to a lucky crit or a flubbed save? Do you groan with dismay if a Wild Magic Sorcerer sits down at your table?

Or do you feel that the game has become too predictable, and want even more chaos, like exploding dice or more d% tables to roll on?

How do you feel WotC will move the game in the future, towards one extreme or another?

For me with most RPGs, and especially D&D, randomness is a hugely important part of what makes it surprising and fun.

 

[DND_Reborn]

No one reads the DMG.

Well, obviously someone does.

 

[Argyle King]

My opinion on randomness depends upon which part of the game we're discussing.

For character creation, I like players being able to play what they want to play. So, I'm fine with pointbuy and more-clearly defined chunks of character creation options.

For the in-game action, I enjoy some element of randomness. Part of the adventure is seeing what happens.

Even if a character and a campaign has a planned story arc, I believe the journey and the things encountered along the way are sometimes more important than the end destination. An element of randomness can introduce something unplanned, which drives the story in a way that may not have been intended but ends up being more enjoyable.

 

[James Gasik]

No one reads the DMG.

Actually, I knew this rule existed, what I should have said is, the game should have this as a core rule.

 

[Krachek]

No one reads the DMG.

No need for the DM guide, the Phb is enough to know that it’s the DM who ask for a roll when a task has an uncertain result. The DM also set the DC, and choose the ability, the skill or tool implied.

 

[Lanefan]

The game probably should have a rule that says something like "if bonus is X and DC is Y, the check succeeds". This would speed up play immensely. People can and do perform many things daily that would require a skill check, but they become so routine that the chance of failure drops to fractions of a percent.

I mean, let's look at driving a car. When you first start to drive, the combination of remembering which pedal to press, being alert of the road ahead, drivers around you, possible road hazards, using turn signals, watching your speed and gas gauge, staying in the center of your lane, all while zipping around at speeds Olympic sprinters can only dream of while merely going around the block in a residential neighborhood, is insane to contemplate- yet many people manage to do this routinely.

In fact, for most of us, these actions are so automatic, that we can do it and even carry on a conversation with passengers in the car!

But in D&D, every time you get in a car there's at least a flat 5% chance that you fail, no matter who you are. And what form does that failure make? Was it a failure to make a turn signal, or to come to a complete stop? Did you veer slightly from the center of your lane, or any number of minor mishaps that don't necessarily mean disaster?

I think I've known a few of those drivers in the past...

Judging from my personal experience alone, the D&D model would probably be that there's a 5% chance that every time you get behind the wheel you'll have an accident that risks life and limb, lol.

Which only points to the fact that the d20 just isn't granular enough for what it's being asked to do.

Simply put, tasks that are performed often get easier over time. 5e's timeline for this is glacial. The idea that you have to wait 4 levels (as a first level character) to get 5% better at your proficient skills is insane.

The key phrase in there is "over time"; which in what seems like the typical 5e campaign is a very scarce resource.

You don't become an experienced driver in a month or two; it takes at least a few years of doing it regularly. Most 5e campaigns (at least, the published ones) aren't designed to last longer than a few in-game months - the PCs are on a hyper-accelerated power drive where they gain stupendous amounts of new abilities in a ridiculously short (to them) time.

Given that, it's hardly surprising that by 15th level you're still nowhere near perfect at something you learned at 2nd - you just haven't had the practice time and repetition, never mind you've also been getting bombarded with more new abilities during that time.