Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BoldItalic" data-source="post: 6852905" data-attributes="member: 6777052">5e is no differerent, in that the DM can use a pre-written adventure where the problems are predefined or he can wing it and invent problems on the fly, or a mixture of both. He could use dice to randomize when problems occur and what kind of problem they are (as in the classic wandering monster roll) or just use his imagination on the spot. Some DMs are comfortable with doing that and find it works well for them, others prefer not to. I think it's a matter of the DM's personality. My feeling is that it is easier to wing it in 5e, but there is no built-in presumption one way or the other.If you are winging it (or even if you aren't), you can use meta considerations too - the players won't necessarily know the difference. I avoided introducing that side of things in my door example and talked about the in-game fiction but, yes, deciding whether or not a door is a problem and if so what kind comes into it too. The DM should be asking himself: is it useful to the narrative to place a problem right now? If I make this door exceptional, am I doing it to delay the party or to divert them along a different route? Or am I doing it to provide a clue to something? Or because nothing much has happened lately and the pace is going a bit slack? All of these are viable meta reasons for making the door exceptional. You could even introduce it for no reason at all to confound metagaming. Conversely, if a door has been marked as exceptional in a pre-prepared scenario, you could decide on the fly to make it unexceptional if it seemed to serve no purpose at the moment. An example of this might be a door that had been placed to delay the party in the expectation that they would be chasing fleeing monsters, but they have somehow killed all the monsters so there is no chase and delays now serve no purpose. In 5e the DM is expected to do this, whereas perhaps it was regarded as inappropriate before.I think there is a different emphasis in 5e, perhaps because the mechanics are simplified. I've been using doors as a canonical example, but I'm going to switch to investigation rolls for finding treasure. The players are in a room and there is some treasure placed there. Do I definitely want them to have the treasure, or definitely not want them to have it, or to only have a random proportion of it, or does it not matter very much either way? Do I want them to feel that they have earned it by solving a problem right now, or have they already solved a signficant problem just getting to this point? Do I want to encourage the searching of rooms as a feature of game, or discourage it? Hiding the treasure and calling for an investigation roll should serve some purpose.In 5e, though, whether or not a roll succeeds only has an in-game consequence (the door is now open or still shut; the treasure is now found or not found), it doesn't directly cross-link to other rolls or other mechanics at the meta level. The rules don't say: if this type of roll fails, you must make that kind of roll.(edit - added)There is another kind of meta-consideration that relates to giving each player a turn in the spotlight. In 5e, there are relatively few skills (just 18) and each PC has a fraction of them (typically about 5) but different PCs will tend to have different factions. The DM can (and preferably should) present problems that allow each player some opportunities to exercise their PC's skills; some doors for the fighter to smash down with his Athletics skill; some clues for the wizard to find with his Investigation skill and so on. But in 5e anyone can attempt these tasks, whether they have the skill or not; having a relevant skill just improves the chances of success if a roll is called for. A situation where a puny wizard smashes down a door that the fighter had just failed to force open can be quite memorable!</blockquote>

Verification