D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Manbearcat]

Isn't the Hard DC based on the fiction though, not on when the DM things is dramatic? I haven't looked at my 4e books in a while so maybe what you say is true. I also don't recall being able to spend HS proactively as a resource (only as a penalty after the fact) but again I haven't looked /played in a while.

Those would be good examples of "subjectiveness". Thanks.

This looks like playstyle to me more than the mechanics of DCs. 4e certainly advocated this play style (one I like) but I also played many games of 3e and earlier this way too.

The bandit routing doesn't cease to exist in "scene framing" style either, the DM and Players just decide they don't want to engage with that stuff or 'play it out'.

More and more, I think "subjective DC" seems to be a code for "dramatic scene framing" playstyle and "objective DC" for "exploration play style".

I think conversation has progressed well beyond this point so I won't go into much of this. The sources for most of this stuff are primarily DMG2 and RC, but also several WotC articles (Dungeon and freebies).

As to your last sentence, I wouldn't use the word "code" there. I would basically just say that each playstyle requires certain component parts of the resolution mechanics in order for them to synergize with GMing techniques and tone/genre. Subjective DCs are definitely more widely used in "protagonism/thematic/genre logic-centered" play where where the only thing that is ever on-screen is meant to be dramatic (hence the conflict-charged scene being the exclusive locus of play). Objective DCs are useful on "serial (time and spatially) exploration-centered play" whereby the players are meant to transit a pre-built map and experience "a living, breathing world" (the on-screen will feature plenty of benign material along with its conflict-charged material) and aim solely for 1st person, PC habitation at all times.

Well, I will say this: I haven't spent the considerable time that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] and I imagine [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] have in doing analysis of Forge discussion and reading up on theory in indy game design. I've read a lot of discussion about techniques and application, but I leave the heavy theoretical lifting to others.

Honestly, all I care about is talking about games with fellow TTRPG peers that have a passion similar to my own. I want to talk about the impacts of design decisions, resolution mechanics, techniques, play goals and how different systems produce different experiences. I want to talk about these things from a GMing perspective. I might involve myself in a discussion about PC builds, mechanics, and balance now and again, but mostly I want to talk about GM-side stuff.

There is all kinds of analysis on the PC side of things, from maths/balance to fluff/crunch nuance to theme, etc. But for whatever weird reason, there is an enormous amount of resistance to trying to look at GMing in a technical manner. I don't know if it is the "it's more art than engineering" ethos or the "system doesn't matter because rule 0 and GM power" ethos or what, but I find it frustrating as hell. I have yet to come by this sort of resistance to technical analysis in any other passion of mine (of which I have many and participate in vigorous discussion about). The Forge was a just a place where folks who like this sort of technical analysis can go to discuss system imperatives, what they induce during play, and GMing techniques (among other things). So you could use pretty straight-forward terminology like "GM-force" (* technique whereby a GM wrests control of a player's thematically, strategically, or tactically significant decisions from that player) or "fictional positioning" (** the physical and temporal location of stuff in our shared imaginary space and their context) without people freaking the hell out. Both of those things are important component parts of an RPG discussion but people flip their lids and go OMGFORGE WTF when they're used. Like I said prior, I'll use any accepted terminology that people want to use. I'll sub GM Ham Sandwich for "GM-Force" or Kookoocachoo for "fictional positioning" if that makes people feel better (for whatever weird reason...yeah, I know the reasons...I call 1st world TTRPG problems for people's care about what Ron Edwards said once upon a time...I just fought a grueling, life-altering 2 year battle with brain cancer where I lost someone extremely precious...I do not care how people feel about Ron Edwards). So long as I don't have to say something like the mouthful of * and ** every single time I need to invoke a meaningful RPG concept, I'm good. If people want to come up with some good terms, fill me in and I'll use them and gladly.

If I have time this weekend, I think I might take an Exploration sequence and examine the moving parts or handling it in several modern systems (4e, 13th Age, 5e, Dungeon World, maybe Cortex + Heroic Fantasy if I have time) for comparison. Maybe something interesting and insightful will come out of that. Probably not but I'm game for uselessly bashing my head against a wall.

 

[Manbearcat]

EDIT: This brings me to something else I am curious about... I noticed earlier that some fans of 4e claimed that it helped one create genre appropriate DC's, I think perhaps it was [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] but I could be wrong... Anyway, my question is what genre are we talking about? Because fantasy isn't all one genre and depending on how a DM chooses to set his DC's determines alot about the feel and tone of the world... so what genre exactly is 4e creating appropriate DC's for?

My bold. 4e definitely has genre step changes throughout the tiers (as is explicated and intended). Further, you've got some setting books and advice in DMG2 that show the potential malleability of 4e's chassis to various genre drift.

By default however, it is something like this (very generally):

Heroic Tier:

- Fate of a village
- Haunted crypts, bandit hideouts, and the the dark woods
- Cultists, orcs, corrupt lords/governors, and ghouls
- The fantasy equivalent of Indiana Jones and Die Hard

Paragon Tier:

- Fate of a nation or even the world
- Uncharted, untamed, dangerous regions of the world and long forgotten dungeons/ruins
- Giants, golems, mind flayers, beholders, the king's corrupt court, malevolent corporations/orgs
- The fantasy equivalent of X-Men

Epic Tier:

- The fate/designs/organization of otherworldly realms and the cosmology that governs the prime world
- Otherworldly realms, parallel dimensions, or the locale of a world-conquering empires
- Arch-liches, (arch)devils, (arch)demonds, ancient dragons, primordials, elder primal spirits, and gods
- Greek myth, Diablo, and the highest order of comic book stuff (eg where Galactus, Thanos and Darkseid are antagonists)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Having a tool that tells you about what DCs would be easy, moderate, or hard for a character of a given level to succeed against is handy if you're trying to get a specific feel, sure. In some sub-genres, the hero usually succeeds at all sorts of tasks that get in their way, so you'd want to choose DCs that are close to the 'easy' column. In others, you have an ensemble cast where each hero is a specialist, and the team needs them to step up at their specialties - and you'd lean more towards hard DCs.

Of course, it's a not a tool that works for everything: There's also a trope in which a highly skilled character has a blindspot, some, often mundane, task that they're comically bad at - that's something that'd have to be reflected in the character (or even in RP), since it wouldn't make sense for DCs to bump up just for him.

That all models genre (various sub-genres).


OTOH, a tool that gives you a guide for DCs based on the in-fiction task, itself, is a different tool entirely. It won't help you model a genre of your choosing, but if you stick to it, it'll model whatever genre or setting or other assumption it's meant to (assuming it's a well-designed tool, anyway). You could still use it in the above processes, but you'd be using it to establish fiction rather than DCs, you'd have to figure out what DCs fit the sub-genre tone you're going for, then you'd use the tool to look up what the task has to be to 'justify' that DC.


Having both tools would give you more flexibility, of course.

 

[tyrlaan]

There is all kinds of analysis on the PC side of things, from maths/balance to fluff/crunch nuance to theme, etc. But for whatever weird reason, there is an enormous amount of resistance to trying to look at GMing in a technical manner. I don't know if it is the "it's more art than engineering" ethos or the "system doesn't matter because rule 0 and GM power" ethos or what, but I find it frustrating as hell. I have yet to come by this sort of resistance to technical analysis in any other passion of mine (of which I have many and participate in vigorous discussion about). The Forge was a just a place where folks who like this sort of technical analysis can go to discuss system imperatives, what they induce during play, and GMing techniques (among other things). So you could use pretty straight-forward terminology like "GM-force" (* technique whereby a GM wrests control of a player's thematically, strategically, or tactically significant decisions from that player) or "fictional positioning" (** the physical and temporal location of stuff in our shared imaginary space and their context) without people freaking the hell out. Both of those things are important component parts of an RPG discussion but people flip their lids and go OMGFORGE WTF when they're used. Like I said prior, I'll use any accepted terminology that people want to use. I'll sub GM Ham Sandwich for "GM-Force" or Kookoocachoo for "fictional positioning" if that makes people feel better (for whatever weird reason...yeah, I know the reasons...I call 1st world TTRPG problems for people's care about what Ron Edwards said once upon a time...I just fought a grueling, life-altering 2 year battle with brain cancer where I lost someone extremely precious...I do not care how people feel about Ron Edwards). So long as I don't have to say something like the mouthful of * and ** every single time I need to invoke a meaningful RPG concept, I'm good. If people want to come up with some good terms, fill me in and I'll use them and gladly.

I know, right?

My theory is two-fold. One is that GMs have strong personalities and I just think things get taken too personally, out of context, delivered insensitively, and so on. In response, GMs are unlikely to just accept it and move on because of said strong personalities, so things keep going down the road less constructive.

The other is that people are too tied up with the need to fight the edition fight*, whether it's to hate on other editions, defend against "haters", or justify their preferred edition. Sadly, I think my theory may be pretty spot on. I mean how much of this DC setting theory conversation is actually about the differences and their pros and cons rather than which one is "better"? And then the comments about how So-and-so's example is "BS" and So-and-so's counterpoint is "corner case" or a "strawman" or etc. And yeah, sometimes those call outs are true.

Now you combine those two and you've got a nice mixing pot for crap as opposed to constructive conversation.

*Let's not kid ourselves, the edition war isn't over, only the "battlefield" and tactics have changed.

 

[ZenGhost]

Nothing, I like it, much cleaner.

 

[Hussar]

Heh. It's kinda funny. Imaro's blizzard example uses DC's from medium to very hard. But those DC's are determined by the system which is, in turn, determined by level. Because 5e's skill system is largely flat, it works fine. But, if we read Chapter 8 of the 5e DMG on determining DC's, we see that as soon as we go beyond those stock DC's, we are advised to take level into account.

Isn't it interesting that it's impossible in Imaro's "objective " system, for a party to have no chance of success? After all, impassible blizzards are a very real event. Being caught in the open in a blizzard is a pretty quick way to die.

But in Imaro's "objective " system, any level characters will always have a chance of success.

But, apparently, this doesn't count for designing challenges based on level.

 

[Shasarak]

Isn't it interesting that it's impossible in Imaro's "objective " system, for a party to have no chance of success? After all, impassible blizzards are a very real event. Being caught in the open in a blizzard is a pretty quick way to die.

But in Imaro's "objective " system, any level characters will always have a chance of success.

That is just Bounded Accuracy - now everyone has a chance of success.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

After all, impassible blizzards are a very real event. Being caught in the open in a blizzard is a pretty quick way to die.

Is it a 100% guarantee of death, though? Or is death only 95% guaranteed?

 

[Hussar]

That is just Bounded Accuracy - now everyone has a chance of success.

Exactly my point. Why is 19 the number chosen? If the PC's capabilities are not a factor then why aren't difficult tasks actually more difficult? Why is being caught in a blizzard just hard enough to be challenging to the PC's but not overwhelming?

Explain to me why 19 is hard?

 

[Hussar]

Is it a 100% guarantee of death, though? Or is death only 95% guaranteed?

With a DC of 19, it's not even that. At worst it's 90%. And, given PC capabilities, it's likely not even that.