D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Micah Sweet]

The DL modules were written for AD&D (1st ed).

They are the exception. They feel very 2e adventure, so I guess I lumped them in over there, but you're right of course.

 

[pemerton]

They are the exception. They feel very 2e adventure, so I guess I lumped them in over there, but you're right of course.

They are just after half-way through the life of AD&D 1st ed (1984 to 1986). And I think they are signs as much, probably more, than they are cause. Lewis Pulsipher was explaining his dislike of a somewhat similar approach to D&D in the late 70s and early 80s (White Dwarf #1, 1977; White Dwarf #24, 1981).

I'm not particularly carrying a torch for Hickman Revolution RPGing, but I think trying to maintain that it is some sort of aberration or deviance, 40+ years after the event in a hobby that is only about 50 years old, is misguided.

 

[Micah Sweet]

They are just after half-way through the life of AD&D 1st ed (1984 to 1986). And I think they are signs as much, probably more, than they are cause. Lewis Pulsipher was explaining his dislike of a somewhat similar approach to D&D in the late 70s and early 80s (White Dwarf #1, 1977; White Dwarf #24, 1981).

I'm not particularly carrying a torch for Hickman Revolution RPGing, but I think trying to maintain that it is some sort of aberration or deviance, 40+ years after the event in a hobby that is only about 50 years old, is misguided.

I agree. Never said it was, just not my preference.

 

[Maxperson]

Again, travel speed is hardly a huge ask here. The game DOES have it. And D&D has always had it. Heck, the "travel day" is a base unit of time really. You need some point to have your one and only one random encounter while traveling after all.

Hey! Occasionally there are two. :::sullenly kicks a rock:::

 

[Maxperson]

They are just after half-way through the life of AD&D 1st ed (1984 to 1986). And I think they are signs as much, probably more, than they are cause. Lewis Pulsipher was explaining his dislike of a somewhat similar approach to D&D in the late 70s and early 80s (White Dwarf #1, 1977; White Dwarf #24, 1981).

Every time I see his name it reminds me of Witchfinder Newton Pulsifer and I chuckle a bit.

 

[M_Natas]

So, there is one other true issue (TM) that I haven't seen discussed here.
Active Insight and perception roles (Players are allowed to do active insight and perception checks) and the whole check declaration by players.
Usually players have to declare an action, the DM decides if a roll is necessary and what attributes and skill proficiencies are applicable if a roll is necessary.

The first problem is, that a lot of tables play with players declaring "I roll stealth" "I roll sleight of hand" "I roll nature ..." - which already is bad and shouldn't been done.
But that the problem gets worse when Insight, Perception and Knowledge checks (do I know this? Can I roll arcana for that?) come into play.
What does an active insight or perception check actually look like?
In the game World it would be: I'm looking very hard.
Like, if a player thinks a NPC is lying, when he asks for an Insight check, that is not an action. I would assume that he is observant during the whole conversation.

So Insight and Perception checks shouldn't exist. Their should be only passive Insight and Perception and NPCs roll against the passive Insight Score to see if they ate lying or not.

Because insight is used like a Liedetector. "Do I believe him?" is like used as a shorthand for I want to roll Insight. But as a DM I can't tell the player if his character believes something or not. That is totally up to the player.
The DM should only tell the player what the character sees, hears, feels (or any of the other senses), but not give the Character drawn conclusions.

Also if the DM rolls, it reduces Metaknowledge. A low perception or insight roll by a player tells him "Okay, maybe I missed something" while a high perception or insight roll tells the player "maybe I didn't miss anything". So if the DM rolls such checks for the NPCs against the Characters passive Insight and Perception scores, the game gets better and unwanted metaknowledge is reduced.

 

[mamba]

Also if the DM rolls, it reduces Metaknowledge. A low perception or insight roll by a player tells him "Okay, maybe I missed something" while a high perception or insight roll tells the player "maybe I didn't miss anything". So if the DM rolls such checks for the NPCs against the Characters passive Insight and Perception scores, the game gets better and unwanted metaknowledge is reduced.

that is an argument for a hidden roll, not for not having the mechanic. I agree with that, the player does not get to roll this, to avoid exactly that, and a failed roll is not ‘you detect nothing’ it can also be ‘you think you detected something that isn’t there’.

As to the player declaring ‘I use X’, I am fine with that, the narration is much more simplistic with less to pick up on than the actual encounter would be. That is what the check is for

 

[Oofta]

So, there is one other true issue (TM) that I haven't seen discussed here.
Active Insight and perception roles (Players are allowed to do active insight and perception checks) and the whole check declaration by players.
Usually players have to declare an action, the DM decides if a roll is necessary and what attributes and skill proficiencies are applicable if a roll is necessary.

The first problem is, that a lot of tables play with players declaring "I roll stealth" "I roll sleight of hand" "I roll nature ..." - which already is bad and shouldn't been done.
But that the problem gets worse when Insight, Perception and Knowledge checks (do I know this? Can I roll arcana for that?) come into play.
What does an active insight or perception check actually look like?
In the game World it would be: I'm looking very hard.
Like, if a player thinks a NPC is lying, when he asks for an Insight check, that is not an action. I would assume that he is observant during the whole conversation.

So Insight and Perception checks shouldn't exist. Their should be only passive Insight and Perception and NPCs roll against the passive Insight Score to see if they ate lying or not.

Because insight is used like a Liedetector. "Do I believe him?" is like used as a shorthand for I want to roll Insight. But as a DM I can't tell the player if his character believes something or not. That is totally up to the player.
The DM should only tell the player what the character sees, hears, feels (or any of the other senses), but not give the Character drawn conclusions.

Also if the DM rolls, it reduces Metaknowledge. A low perception or insight roll by a player tells him "Okay, maybe I missed something" while a high perception or insight roll tells the player "maybe I didn't miss anything". So if the DM rolls such checks for the NPCs against the Characters passive Insight and Perception scores, the game gets better and unwanted metaknowledge is reduced.

I guess I just don't think of these things as true issues, it's more a preference. I don't care how people declare actions any more than I care how they declare an attack or spell in combat encounters. At a certain point it's just a short hand and as long as people are being clear, I don't care. If someone is being vague, intentionally or not, I'll ask for details. In all my years of DMing I've never seen significant issues with this.

Why shouldn't "I roll stealth" ever be said? It's far more likely that someone will say "I try to sneak past", but I don't read the PHB or DMG as a holy text or even as a "This is the way the game must be played". That, to me is far too strict a wording. Each group should find the style and flow that works for them. So at my table if it's clear the group is trying to sneak past someone a "Stealth X" is good enough.

As far as insight, I'll give generalities, it's not a straight up lie detector. It's not "Is he lying", or at least not just lying. You're paying close attention so you might notice that they're nervous or stumble over the name of the guard captain. I don't want to play the equivalent of "guess the emotional state and ask specifically for that emotional state" game.

End of the day we are playing a game and I want people to feel declare actions in any way that works for them. Simply replacing one style of people declaring what they are doing does not improve the quality of the game in my opinion.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I guess I just don't think of these things as true issues, it's more a preference. I don't care how people declare actions any more than I care how they declare an attack or spell in combat encounters. At a certain point it's just a short hand and as long as people are being clear, I don't care. If someone is being vague, intentionally or not, I'll ask for details. In all my years of DMing I've never seen significant issues with this.

Why shouldn't "I roll stealth" ever be said? It's far more likely that someone will say "I try to sneak past", but I don't read the PHB or DMG as a holy text or even as a "This is the way the game must be played". That, to me is far too strict a wording. Each group should find the style and flow that works for them. So at my table if it's clear the group is trying to sneak past someone a "Stealth X" is good enough.

As far as insight, I'll give generalities, it's not a straight up lie detector. It's not "Is he lying", or at least not just lying. You're paying close attention so you might notice that they're nervous or stumble over the name of the guard captain. I don't want to play the equivalent of "guess the emotional state and ask specifically for that emotional state" game.

End of the day we are playing a game and I want people to feel declare actions in any way that works for them. Simply replacing one style of people declaring what they are doing does not improve the quality of the game in my opinion.

I want to experiment with me as dm being the one to ask for a particular roll. We do a mixture but deep down believe it would be more fun if we said what we did and the dm calls for it. We may try when it my turn. My kids are green and would not even know what roll to call for.

That said we played yesterday with standard D&D. Regular dungeon. Some fomorian giants…some wraiths etc. and it was so fun.

 

[M_Natas]

that is an argument for a hidden roll, not for not having the mechanic. I agree with that, the player does not get to roll this, to avoid exactly that, and a failed roll is not ‘you detect nothing’ it can also be ‘you think you detected something that isn’t there’.

But a hidden roll is for a PC Action is ... I think it would be harder to take away a rollt hat is supposed to be done by the Player than to change this skills to passive scores.

As to the player declaring ‘I use X’, I am fine with that, the narration is much more simplistic with less to pick up on than the actual encounter would be. That is what the check is for

But "I use skill" is not an action declaration. Like, "I use acrobatics to get over the chasm" is like - no. What are you trying to do? Jumping over it? Lasso yourself over it? Ride on a horse that jumps and then you jump from the horse?
In some cases, yes, using a skill as an action declaration can work. But in most cases it is not even vague. It is a Non-Declaration. Also the DM decides what Skill is applicable. Not the player.

I guess I just don't think of these things as true issues, it's more a preference. I don't care how people declare actions any more than I care how they declare an attack or spell in combat encounters. At a certain point it's just a short hand and as long as people are being clear, I don't care. If someone is being vague, intentionally or not, I'll ask for details. In all my years of DMing I've never seen significant issues with this.

Why shouldn't "I roll stealth" ever be said? It's far more likely that someone will say "I try to sneak past", but I don't read the PHB or DMG as a holy text or even as a "This is the way the game must be played". That, to me is far too strict a wording. Each group should find the style and flow that works for them. So at my table if it's clear the group is trying to sneak past someone a "Stealth X" is good enough.

But how are the Sneaking past him? Like, that us the whole point that defined the difficulty. Are they trying to speak trough a completely empty corridors, hoping that the Guards will not turn around or are they hurrying from shadow to shadow using a special ability to get invisible in the shadows?
The players need to declare clearly what they are trying to do and the DM decides, what Skill is used, if any.

As far as insight, I'll give generalities, it's not a straight up lie detector. It's not "Is he lying", or at least not just lying. You're paying close attention so you might notice that they're nervous or stumble over the name of the guard captain. I don't want to play the equivalent of "guess the emotional state and ask specifically for that emotional state" game.

End of the day we are playing a game and I want people to feel declare actions in any way that works for them. Simply replacing one style of people declaring what they are doing does not improve the quality of the game in my opinion.

Put players shouting "Insight!" Is not an action declaration. That is the problem with insight and perception. That should be Completly passive skills sets.

So for example a character is interrogating a Npc. He is focused on the NPC. After a minute the player declare "Insight, I think he is lying".
The player wants to roll the Insight Skill.
But the Character hasn't changed a thing. He is still concentarting on the NPC
Their is not suddenly concentraiting harder on the NPC.
The fiction of the story does not support an Insight Check at all. The same with perception.
That's why they should be completely passive skills that NPCs roll against. Like spell saving throw dcs of player characters.
Because in the fiction of the story, the NPC is trying to deceive the player character. He is doing something trying to overcome the DC of the player character.