D&D General What do you NOT want systems for?

[Lanefan]

Such lists should be self-contained to a given skill. It's a DC X check to climb a rough wall, a DC Y to climb a smooth wall, a DC Z to just have a 30 ft climb speed and a DC Q to fight with one hand while clinging upside down from a ceiling, here's a list of modifiers for ambient conditions, etc.

No reference to an "Easy" or "Very Hard" challenge, either as a generic statement or in a level based table. A player asking for the DC of a check should be asking a rules expert for clarification about the manual, not for the DM to assign one, or maybe clarifying the description of the scene.

IMO the player should never know the numerical DC but instead have to figure out in-character whether something is easy-hard-whatever from the narration given; and if the narration isn't clear enough, ask more questions. That said, don't try to con the DM into narrating things your character(s) can't perceive.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I think that just boils down to unnecessary word games and subjective difficulty where you can have a player who is an expert who knows a thing is super simple, barely an inconvenience and the DM having no idea and assuming it is hard because they have no training; when both player and DM can just accept it's a game and declare a DC to beat.

 

[Retros_x]

I kinda agree, though it be a huge turn-off for people who are shy or less outgoing. Some of my friends wouldn't be able to persuade anything if their life depended on it. So there would be a huge list of character archetypes they would not be able to play at the table.

Irrelevant for a number of people. Social anxiety, ADHD, and other issues simply can't be treated with exposure therapy, no matter how cool it would be if you could.

But, of course, calling for cutting out systems that are helpful to others is quite easy to ask for when one doesn't need the benefit oneself.

Why are so many here confusing acting with roleplaying? "My character tries to flatter the king with compliments about his golden palace to get his good will" There is no need for a player to be as charismatic as his character, same as the player doesn't need to be as strong as his character. If you are to anxious to state your characters action and intent, you are to anxious to play D&D. But I've never met a player like that. I met several with social anxiety who wouldn't want to act their character out with voice, mannerisms etc. which is perfectly fine.

For me, there is a definite line where tactical complexity makes me want to stop playing a tabletop game and fire up my Switch or Laptop for Fire Wmblem or the Banner Saga instead.

Rightfully so, video games are just better at that stuff. In the same vein I would like to get rid of every grid related rule and 5' steps. Just use zones and/or no. of units affected.

We should look at the best stealth video games and borrow from there. Not the you’re easily spotted and lose the second you’re spotted one. Instead the ones with varying levels of threat, alertness, vantage points, getting back into stealth, etc. You could probably do that with a sliding clock.

Using clocks for overall alertness or something is more scenario design and not rules IMO. I use it already and don't even consider it as homebrew.

Another thing I don't need: Chase rules or any other minigame subsystem for something that can be solved with skill checks and roleplay (so almost everything).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why are so many here confusing acting with roleplaying? "My character tries to flatter the king with compliments about his golden palace to get his good will" There is no need for a player to be as charismatic as his character, same as the player doesn't need to be as strong as his character. If you are to anxious to state your characters action and intent, you are to anxious to play D&D. But I've never met a player like that. I met several with social anxiety who wouldn't want to act with their characters voice, mannerisms etc. which is perfectly fine.

Because that was literally what was asked for. That players should personally be giving rousing speeches and the like--since that is real-world social skill in action. That was literally what was asked for.

If there was a confusion here, it started from the people saying we should get rid of social skill rules.

Rightfully so, video games are just better at that stuff. In the same vein I would like to get rid of every grid related rule and 5' steps. Just use zones and/or no. of units affected.

Whereas for me, doing that instantly destroys my ability to properly understand what is going on. I've tried, very hard, to process the "range bands" of 13A. It still completely escapes me. I keep asking questions that the model is not meant to ask, because it doesn't track position, just nebulous area-ness that can be self-contradictory.

Using clocks for overall alertness or something is more scenario design and not rules IMO. I use it already and don't even consider it as homebrew.

I mean...it is both a rule and homebrew for 5e, whether or not you think it so.

Another thing I don't need: Chase rules or any other minigame subsystem for something that can be solved with skill checks and roleplay (so almost everything).

Unfortunate. Having a structure for things that are more complex than a single skill check can actually be really really useful. Especially since that's a very effective way to kill the "keep rolling until you fail" problem and other related GM errors.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

Why are so many here confusing acting with roleplaying? "My character tries to flatter the king with compliments about his golden palace to get his good will" There is no need for a player to be as charismatic as his character, same as the player doesn't need to be as strong as his character. If you are to anxious to state your characters action and intent, you are to anxious to play D&D. But I've never met a player like that. I met several with social anxiety who wouldn't want to act their character out with voice, mannerisms etc. which is perfectly fine.

For some, its not the ability (or lack thereof) to act their character in a social situation, its about having difficulty to understand or guess the pertinent or ''right'' social mannerism to use in a given context.

To take your example, some of my player would never have the reflex the approach ''flatter the king'' or the ''about his golden palace''. Its sound obvious for me, but for them, the maximum they can do is probably closer to '' I try to persuade the king that we are good people''.

Do I hate it? Hell yes! But its from the same people who freeze when the cashier says welcome to them as they enter a shop. So I cut them some slack.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For some, its not the ability (or lack thereof) to act their character in a social situation, its about having difficulty to understand or guess the pertinent or ''right'' social mannerism to use in a given context.

To take your example, some of my player would never have the reflex the approach ''flatter the king'' or the ''about his golden palace''. Its sound obvious for me, but for them, the maximum they can do is probably closer to '' I try to persuade the king that we are good people''.

Do I hate it? Hell yes! But its from the same people who freeze when the cashier says welcome to them as they enter a shop. So I cut them some slack.

Exactly. I have a player who isn't, to the best of my knowledge, AD(H)D nor autism spectrum, but he absolutely freezes up hard if put on the spot too much. I mean genuinely sitting there, saying absolutely nothing for 2+ minutes because he just doesn't know what to say.

We have, very, very slowly made progress. As in, it used to be genuinely impossible to get much of anything out of him. Now, with the right prompts and encouragement, there's maybe a 50% chance he'll have something rather than nothing.

If I had to approach all social things the way it's described here, he would never be able to play.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I find there are few things that couldn't benefit with some level of guidelines at minimum and many that would benefit from something more systematized, both for the GM and the player. Generally speaking if your class is specifically meant to be good at it, there probably should be rules for it so that your entire gimmick isn't reliant on your GM and so that you can actually proactively try to do things within the game rather than constantly hash things out with the Game Master. Same with a skill or even an ability score: if you're giving me something with no structure, I'm going to feel less at-ease in trying to use it because I can't predict the sort of thought-gap between what my GM thinks it is for and what I think it's for.

If there's something I'd like to see streamline/cut back on, I think @Gorck nailed it when they said multiclassing. I think the sort of "cut and paste" multiclassing is the bane of good design and forces the early levels to be worse because devs don't want to have classes that are all about quick dips. I'd rather see very limited multiclassing (4E's version wouldn't be bad) and more classes that cover more niches instead of "Well, I take two levels from here, another from here, then 4 levels from here..."

 

[Retros_x]

Because that was literally what was asked for. That players should personally be giving rousing speeches and the like--since that is real-world social skill in action. That was literally what was asked for.

That was not was asked for.

If there was a confusion here, it started from the people saying we should get rid of social skill rules.

That was asked for. He wanted skills gone, not forcing players to do some amateur acting.

Whereas for me, doing that instantly destroys my ability to properly understand what is going on. I've tried, very hard, to process the "range bands" of 13A. It still completely escapes me. I keep asking questions that the model is not meant to ask, because it doesn't track position, just nebulous area-ness that can be self-contradictory.

Than you have a GM who is not good as that thing. And just saying, I dont mean: "do everything in theatre of the mind", just to get rid of the grid and fiddly 5' measurements. I use maps, I just don't want to chessboard the game. Simple, abstract maps so everybody understands how the environment is layouted and who is standing where are completely enough for most encounters.

I mean...it is both a rule and homebrew for 5e, whether or not you think it so.

Its not. Defining how guard react and how alert procedures happen in a fortress is encounter / scenario design.

Unfortunate. Having a structure for things that are more complex than a single skill check can actually be really really useful. Especially since that's a very effective way to kill the "keep rolling until you fail" problem and other related GM errors.

I never said anything about using a single skill check. I just don't need minigames and subsystems. Its more mental load and its slows the game to a slog everytime. Bonus points if the GM forces you to do the minigame because he prepared it, even if you don't want to or find a better solution e.g. casting Hold Person on the villain that tries to run away in a cinematic chase that the GM spend hours preparing.

For some, its not the ability (or lack thereof) to act their character in a social situation, its about having difficulty to understand or guess the pertinent or ''right'' social mannerism to use in a given context.

To take your example, some of my player would never have the reflex the approach ''flatter the king'' or the ''about his golden palace''. Its sound obvious for me, but for them, the maximum they can do is probably closer to '' I try to persuade the king that we are good people''.

Do I hate it? Hell yes! But its from the same people who freeze when the cashier says welcome to them as they enter a shop. So I cut them some slack.

I'm sorry I had players on the spectrum at the table, but roleplaying is decision making, no matter what challenge is involved. An easy fix for your problem that I had lot of success with is offering help and choices. "Hey Tom, with your passive insight you realize that the king is quite proud of his golden palace. You could try to flatter him and praise his palace, you could threaten to burn it down or something else that comes to your mind to get from him what you want". If the players says like in your example "

'' I try to persuade the king that we are good people'

you already have the intent! Thats great, now ask for the method "Nice, how are you going to do that, play a ballad of your good deeds, call a witness to court or you have some different idea on your mind?" You can also ring other players in to help Tom to get ideas how to persuade the king.

This btw is helping every player, no matter their condition. Keep in dialogue with your players, offer them options. But the most boring play IMO is "Can I roll persuasion" "yes" "20" "Ok, you persuaded the king *insert Matt Mercer 5 minute monologe until a player presses the next skill on their character sheet" (I am exaggerating to make my point clear).

I think that was meant with "no skill checks, just roleplaying" at least thats what I am understanding.

edit: Or to say it otherwise: Roleplaying is about decision making. If your players always look at their skills they make decisions between the always same 3-6 skills they are proficient with, some players might even consider the ones they are not proficient with. If you make decisions from the narrative like described above you will have indefinitely possibilties, thats sounds at least to me much more exciting. And your players are not dumb, they might've have ADHD, social anxiety or whatssoever but they are not dumb. They can deal with more options than the 3 same social skills over and over again.

 

[Lanefan]

Rightfully so, video games are just better at that stuff. In the same vein I would like to get rid of every grid related rule and 5' steps.

I would too, but in favour of more precise positioning rather than less. "Snap-to-grid" is awful. I want to know exactly where you are - and you probably do too, when I'm lining up my lightning bolt...

Another thing I don't need: Chase rules or any other minigame subsystem for something that can be solved with skill checks and roleplay (so almost everything).

I'd love to see a useful set of pursuit rules, or even some decent guidelines malleable to suit the specific situation. Right now I always have to kind of wing it each time, and while I can sort of make it work there's still loads of room for improvement.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I do not want mechanical systems for:

• Neurodivergency (ADHD, Autism, etc) or caricaturized versions of them. This should be based on careful, thoughtful roleplay.
• Mental Illnesses (Schizophrenia, eating disorders, PTSD, etc) or caricaturized versions of them.
• Different abilities between male and female humans and similar humanoid races. For creatures with extreme sexual dimorphism, like Steeders or Anglerfish, it's absolutely fine. However, lower Strength Caps/bonuses for female human characters and similar systems is unacceptable.