D&D 5E What Makes 5E "5E"?

[Yaarel]

5E doesn't eliminate player skill gaming. It gives the GM the tools to decide. That's literally the definition of "rulings over rules."

5e gives the DM almost total discretion over how to use the skill system. So DM style is everything for the skill system.

But would you say "ruling over rules" apply to combat rules?

(I see heavy use of skills during combat, such as for stunts of various kinds. So these get adjudication. But the combat rules of AC, hp, attack rolls, etcetera, tend to automate.)

 

[Oofta]

5e gives the DM almost total discretion over how to use the skill system. So DM style is everything for the skill system.

But would you say "ruling over rules" apply to combat rules?

(I see heavy use of skills during combat, such as for stunts of various kinds. So these get adjudication. But the combat rules of AC, hp, attack rolls, etcetera, tend to automate.)

Sometimes rulings over rules does apply to combat. Do you allow an intimidation check against enemies? Is it an action, bonus action, free? What's the DC? If there's a chandelier to swing from, how can it be used and is there a bonus to using it? What about a risk? I allow people to do creative stunts now and then, things that have a chance of failure but will allow them to either bypass a normal restriction or get a minor bonus with a penalty for failure.

 

[Yaarel]

Sometimes rulings over rules does apply to combat. Do you allow an intimidation check against enemies? Is it an action, bonus action, free? What's the DC? If there's a chandelier to swing from, how can it be used and is there a bonus to using it? What about a risk? I allow people to do creative stunts now and then, things that have a chance of failure but will allow them to either bypass a normal restriction or get a minor bonus with a penalty for failure.

This is mostly skills rules. And yeah, exactly the kinds of skills I adjudicate during combat.

But the combat mechanics rules kinda run on autopilot.

 

[Oofta]

This is mostly skills rules. And yeah, exactly the kinds of skills I adjudicate during combat.

But the combat mechanics rules kinda run on autopilot.

For my games, a lot of things sort of run on autopilot most of the time. Social situations are dominated by RP where I pay attention to what is said not the how, but it is my preference that the resolution is a roll if it's not automatic. So maybe those are on autopilot too?

I guess my point is that the main throughline of play is going to follow the established rules because that's why we have rules in the first place. Meanwhile I do make rulings to better suit the style of play everyone at the table enjoys. My rulings (and a handful of house rules) are just little tweaks that can personalize the game for us.

 

[Xenolith234]

Right, so that's all I'm really saying here. There's a type of gameplay that 5e players don't find fun, and so 5e skips over that part. You can go around searching for traps with a 10 foot poll, relying on GM adjudication over skill rolls, but contemporary players tend to not like that and thus skip over that part. It's not what makes 5e, "5e."

I’m inclined to think that 5e-only players may not even know a different type of gameplay aside from just rolling skills.

Though, I can’t tell you how often one of my players always said when he walked into a space “I perceive the room”, hoping to just skip all of the description.

One difference in the older method vs the modern method is that chances of success on the dice was rather low to reinforce creative thinking rather than just relying on the dice to give the answer. It now encourages players to see the skills on their sheet and think “why can’t I just roll” instead of going through the creative hoops of exploring the environment.

 

[billd91]

I’m inclined to think that 5e-only players may not even know a different type of gameplay aside from just rolling skills.

Though, I can’t tell you how often one of my players always said when he walked into a space “I perceive the room”, hoping to just skip all of the description.

One difference in the older method vs the modern method is that chances of success on the dice was rather low to reinforce creative thinking rather than just relying on the dice to give the answer. It now encourages players to see the skills on their sheet and think “why can’t I just roll” instead of going through the creative hoops of exploring the environment.

That's nothing new. Even in 1e/2e, people would say "I search the room" without a lot of specifics and just hope for those 1 in 6 chances of finding a secret door. It may have become more prominent with 3e when they finally had a stable set of search/spot skills, but it's been with us a long time and is far from exclusively 5e-only players.

 

[Oofta]

I’m inclined to think that 5e-only players may not even know a different type of gameplay aside from just rolling skills.

Comments like this, intended or not, seem to be both denigrating of the capabilities of players while also being "I know the one true way."

Though, I can’t tell you how often one of my players always said when he walked into a space “I perceive the room”, hoping to just skip all of the description.

One difference in the older method vs the modern method is that chances of success on the dice was rather low to reinforce creative thinking rather than just relying on the dice to give the answer. It now encourages players to see the skills on their sheet and think “why can’t I just roll” instead of going through the creative hoops of exploring the environment.

The book is quite clear that in many situations the dice are completely optional and it's up to the DM and group to figure out what works best for them. In my own game, I do rely on dice fairly often because I want the PC build choices to matter and I want to make that person who has invested in something other than combat skills like their investment was worthwhile. I still adjust target DCs based on approach, sometimes to the point where there is no longer uncertainty.

Wanting the character build to matter has nothing to do with creativity or a lack therein, all you're doing is dressing up personal preference as a "better" way. There's still plenty of room for creativity, it's just not going to be "Convince the DM I'm doing this right."

As far as being new, it's always been a choice in approach to the game. I just want a game where my character is the one that needs the talent, not me personally.

 

[Chaltab]

Honestly I feel like most people who comment on schools or 'cultures' of play only know the other schools and cultures from stereotypes and thus any conversation is at best useless and at worst counterproductive.

 

[Oofta]

Honestly I feel like most people who comment on schools or 'cultures' of play only know the other schools and cultures from stereotypes and thus any conversation is at best useless and at worst counterproductive.

I read about some of these supposed "old school" ways of playing and while I can recognize that people played or continue to play in certain ways, it has little to do with my own personal experience. I know some people were always into the whole "describe how you find a trap" as an example, and it's something I've never wanted in my game outside of general approach and precautions. There's never been a great deal of consistency in styles of play and that, to me, is one of the strengths of the game.

 

[Deset Gled]

Honestly I feel like most people who comment on schools or 'cultures' of play only know the other schools and cultures from stereotypes and thus any conversation is at best useless and at worst counterproductive.

'Culture of play' is just a softened way of playing up otherism within the gaming community.