D&D 5E Those poor farmers!

[Celebrim]

This situation isn't imagined in the downtime rules, but if you want to run a contest over a week, simply roll 7x for both the PC and the NPC. Whoever rolls better on the provided tables wins.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. So, it seems an NPC could roll on the table.

If you want other factors to influence the outcome (skill, some material or social advantage, magical intervention, etc.), then you are totally outside the rules and will need to make a ruling as the DM.

And here is where I find fault with the rules as is. Because even if we don't care what happens with NPCs, you would think that skill, material or social advantage, and so forth should be able to influence the results for the PCs. The guy running a business with the right tool or skill proficiencies or other advantages ought to have advantage on a 'running a business roll'. Using the rules even as is, there is a disconnect from the scenario and the rules we apply to it. Remember when I noted that at a minimum we expect the combat system to advantage people skilled in combat. Well, a downtime system has the same need. Different sorts of choices should be more favorable for different sorts of characters and backgrounds.

But, ok, we could make some rulings that is to say we could make up a rule on the fly, since that is exactly what a ruling is. But the fact that we can make up rulings isn't a feature. The rules don't naturally extend to cover related situations. So they aren't even very good at handling a quick update of the situation of a PC between adventures. They are simply too crude to handle even the basic expected outcome well. They fail for the same reason that Celebrim's 'Simplest Gaming System ever' fails* - the resolution system has no verisimilitude except by accident. Merely being simple and easy isn't enough to make a rule good.

*The core rule (and virtually the only rule) of this system is, "Whenever the player proposes an action, flip a coin. On heads, they succeed. On tails, they fail."

 

[aramis erak]

Sigh, but at that point IT'S NOT A DOWNTIME ACTIVITY. Is it? Sure, it's D&D, no problem. But, it's not a downtime activity. It's a centre stage activity that should be played out at the table.

You are complaining that a hammer is no good for screwing in screws. You are trying to use a tool for something it's clearly labeled not to be used for.

Again, you are the only one saying, "it's not D&D." It would be very helpful if you would actually stick to the arguments being made, rather than ones you think are being made. NPC's don't have up or downtime. They don't exist. They don't have any time at all. Unless they are interacting with the PC's in some manner, they don't need mechanics whatsoever.

What would be the purpose of having these mechanics for NPC's? Why do I need to have mechanics that detail the amount of money an NPC makes on a semi-regular basis when these NPC's have no actual interaction with the PC's? IOW, who gives a rat's petoot how much money the weaver is making in Hommlet on a monthly basis?

Let's look at the subsection introductory text from the PHB:

DOWNTIME ACTIVITIES
Between adventures, the DM might ask you what your
character is doing during his or her downtime. Periods
of downtime can vary in duration, but each downtime
activity requires a certain number of days to complete
before you gain any benefit, and at least 8 hours of each
day must be spent on the downtime activity for the day
to count. The days do not need to be consecutive. Ir you
have more than the minimum amount of days to spend,
you can keep doing the same thing for a longer period
of time, or switch to a new downtime activity.​

Between adventures? Hmm, NPCs sometimes DO have adventures - most not since childhood, others on a regular basis.

Time between them? Yep, axiomatically so. Probably far more than adventurer PC's do.

Can it model NPC's in a manner that results in sustained lifestyle? Yes. If yes, then it makes as much simulation sense as I need

So what the ≤bleep≥ makes it look like it shouldn't apply to NPC's if the DM wants it to?
(Especially since all the monsters use the same player-facing combat rules, maneuvers, etc.)

The best games keep the rules the same for NPC and PC as much as their Simplifications allow. D&D not doing that in early editions is part of why there are now several thousand different RPGs.

My own inherent simulationism leads me to look at D&D rules and ask, "So, what is this simulating?" and not so much, "is this an accurate simulation?"

 

[weldon]

And here is where I find fault with the rules as is. Because even if we don't care what happens with NPCs, you would think that skill, material or social advantage, and so forth should be able to influence the results for the PCs.

This is where we will have to agree to disagree I guess. I feel that once you get to the point where there are other factors at play, you should abandon the downtime rules and look at other rules for social interaction or skills and proceed from there.

Remember when I noted that at a minimum we expect the combat system to advantage people skilled in combat. Well, a downtime system has the same need.

Sorry, but I disagree. I don't think a downtime system has the same needs for action resolution and narrative development as one of the three primary pillars of the system.

But the fact that we can make up rulings isn't a feature.

Hmmmm

The rules don't naturally extend to cover related situations.

Hmmmm

Not sure if I agree with those two statements.

Thanks for the respect you've given me in the discussion thus far. I appreciate it. I feel that I have a better understanding of your position and there is a lot in it that I find worthy. I'm left with a feeling that we expect different things from downtime rules and those differences won't be easily reconciled.

I fully support your desire to have better ideas about how to resolve non-combat contests. I'm not yet sure if that requires new rules or simply new ideas about how to apply the existing rules to these situations. I suspect that a bit of both would be required. If I were going to do that (work on ideas to support your interests in business contests, etc.), I think I would look at skill contests and social interactions and attack the problem from that angle.

 

[Hussar]

The best games keep the rules the same for NPC and PC as much as their Simplifications allow. D&D not doing that in early editions is part of why there are now several thousand different RPGs.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?399785-Those-poor-farmers!/page11#ixzz3NaZC0QXY

I would amend that to say the best games for you, not the best games, full stop. For me, the trend to force NPC's and PC's to all work with the same rules has caused far more problems than it has solved.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

The best games keep the rules the same for NPC and PC as much as their Simplifications allow. D&D not doing that in early editions is part of why there are now several thousand different RPGs.

I really don't like running games like that anymore. I don't mind PLAYING them, but that's because all that heavy lifting is done by the DM/GM. For me, the best games realize that the NPCs are disposable and have an existence only when interacted with by the PCs and, therefore, need rules that power them with broad strokes if at all. D&D not doing that in early editions is part of why it's still a big dog in the RPG department as far as my shelf goes.