Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 8639851" data-attributes="member: 86653">I don't think so. They're there to provide both a moment to shine for the PCs (mowing the minions down with ease) while also providing something akin to a challenge (by doing reasonable damage). Matt's minion rules provide the first but not the second.Right. The problem there is the DM is running a railroad where specific things must happen, and they're further compounding the problem by locking the things that must happen behind random rolls. That's just bad DMing.I think part of the problem is that people don't read the social rules for 5E. There's three steps. DM determines starting disposition. Players try to adjust that disposition. DM asks for a roll when the players finally come to the point or ask for something. And every seems to skip over this bit:"That said, a hostile creature might be so ill-disposed toward the party that no Charisma check can improve its attitude, in which case any attempt to sway it through diplomacy fails automatically."Negotiating with hostile creatures isn't a thing PCs should be doing. But then...that's why there are reaction tables in older editions. Not every monster you face is automatically hostile and trying to murder you. So, back to the thread, 5E is missing reaction tables.Unless there's a fair chance of success or failure there's no point in rolling. If you've stacked things so well in your favor, it should be automatic. If things are so lop-sided against you, it should be automatic. No need to roll for a foregone conclusion. Most rolls should be in that vast excluded middle.Two things. First, max level with max stat and proficiency isn't optimized. Second, the problem is we define difficult differently so that's making us talk past each other. "Difficult" isn't 60% chance of success. That's about twice as likely as MLB's all-time best hitter hitting a ball while at bat. That's the opposite of "difficult". That's easy. Difficult is something like 25% chance of success.It almost reads like we define a lot of things differently. In an RPG the expectation is players have the freedom to try anything. Literally anything...as long as it's within bounds of the genre and the PC's capabilities. Chance of success is never guaranteed. You can try to fast-talk the king into giving up your crown...that in no way implies that you have any chance of success. The problem is the bolded bits. What's reasonable to one is insane to another. Thinking that you have a chance to fast-talk the king into giving up his crown might seem reasonable to a player with max CHA and expertise in persuasion, while also being insane to the DM. There's no objective standard for what's "reasonable". When there's a conflict between what the player and DM expect, the DM is the final arbiter. If the DM's call seem arbitrary or unreasonable to you as a player, ask the DM why they made that call. Also, you're talking about reasonable here. But you're the one who set the example DC at 20. That is, by definition, not something with a reasonable chance of success. The DCs are largely based around an assumed +0 roll. So something that for the average person has a 5% chance of success is not what I'd call reasonable. That your PC has a bonus to that task makes it easier to accomplish, but that's a show of how awesome the PC is compared to an average person.No. You've got it backwards. The world does not mold and transform to suit the PCs and the load-out they bring to the table. NPCs don't suddenly become more easily negotiated with simply because none of the players wanted to run a face character. Likewise, doors that would be locked don't magically become unlocked if the party has no rogue or PC with proficiency with thieves' tools. That's not how any of this works. The PCs shouldn't have a reasonable chance to overcome every obstacle. Some things will be harder, others easier. That's kind of what I was asking about up thread. Why would you assume that no matter what you and your party should always be able to tackle every obstacle and challenge no matter what? That's the opposite of reasonable.Yes, exactly. Welcome to a human-run RPGs. That's literally how the game works. Everything is an interaction between the player and the DM. You have to present your case that something is reasonable to the human running the game.Um...no. A 12 or better with 2d20 is 69.75% chance of success. Load up anydice and drop this in "output [highest 1 of 2d20]" then click "at least". Look at the # line for 12.Well, that's down to there being no reaction tables in the game and the assumption that every single monster is there to fight. Both players and DMs make that mistake. But yeah, sometimes you're not going to be able to talk to the monsters trying to eat you.Exactly. It's so odd. Players want the dice to solve everything...and to use them all the time...yet want their chances of success to be so high that there's no point in bothering with the roll. I honestly don't get it. The fun of rolling is the anticipation of the result...not the sound the math rocks make on the table. Like opening a present. It could be DragonQuest for the NES or a pair of socks or noting or a glitter bomb or dog poo. We're defining hostile differently then. Hostile means they don't like you, are not disposed to listening to you, and consider themselves your enemy. There's almost zero chance of saying "hey, could you not" to a creature who actively wants to harm you. That's not a reasonable expectation.I expect players to face AC20 around the same time they have AC20...so 1st or 2nd level...in most cases.It does, sort of. In the DMG. There's an optional rule for degrees of failure on page 242. It's not hard to use a similar framework for degrees of success. There's also pass/fail, critical/fumble as degrees of success.It really is weird to me. I agree with what you're saying here. If you're going somewhere dangerous to do dangerous things...you should, I dunno, expect some...danger. It's odd that some players want this weird mish-mash of "danger" as a veneer we all pretend is there but really isn't. Like most combat in 5E is so wildly tipped in the players' favor that it's a foregone conclusion...to the point where rolling dice is just wasting table time...yet players seem to honestly think it's somehow dangerous...when it really isn't. I want danger in my games. I want risk. I want consequences. I want wonder. I want terror. I appreciate it when I'm on either side of the screen. I don't get when, why, and how "let's play a game of pretend with actual in-game risks" morphed into "let's pretend we're playing a game with actual in-game risks."</blockquote>

Verification