Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[Thomas Shey]

Every edition of D&D prior to 5e has had more subtlety even if too many subtle benefits were stacked in some cases.

I can get how people want to stay away from the way the process as it played out in 3e, but this seems like a massive overcorrection.

 

[Lanefan]

Eh. I’m fine with the slight loss in resolution just to avoid the ever increasing stack of minutes wasted hunting down +1s. Plus or minus 5-10% isn’t worth bothering with.

That's more than a slight loss in resolution, if you're going from +1 (5%) to whatever average-% bonus advantage gives (if memory serves someone once worked out it's about the same on average as +3 or +4 but I forget where or even if I saw that).

It's also more than a slight loss in resolution if you're going from +20% (+5 and -1) to flat 0 (adv-disadv cancelling out).

But more important, there's no variance to it. You've got three options - advantage, disadvantage, or flat - and that's it. Personally, I'd like a lot more possible granularity.

The way to get around people wasting time bonus hunting is to have fewer and easy-to-track things be what give bonuses. As with many other things, 3e went overboard on how much stacking you could do; it's not the model to try emulating here.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The way to get around people wasting time bonus hunting is to have fewer and easy-to-track things be what give bonuses. As with many other things, 3e went overboard on how much stacking you could do; it's not the model to try emulating here.

Yup. I mentioned at least two other games that manage to avoid that without just having the three-case situation.

 

[overgeeked]

That's more than a slight loss in resolution, if you're going from +1 (5%) to whatever average-% bonus advantage gives (if memory serves someone once worked out it's about the same on average as +3 or +4 but I forget where or even if I saw that).

Sorry, but a 5-10% loss is slight.

It's also more than a slight loss in resolution if you're going from +20% (+5 and -1) to flat 0 (adv-disadv cancelling out).

Well, sure. But that’s not how dis/advantage works. If it’s worth about +3 or more, it’s worth advantage. If it’s worth about -3 or more, it’s worth disadvantage. So you don’t have situations like you describe. If the bonus/penalty is smaller than that it’s generally ignored. Because it’s not worth tracking.

But more important, there's no variance to it. You've got three options - advantage, disadvantage, or flat - and that's it. Personally, I'd like a lot more possible granularity.

There’s a lot more than that. Auto success, auto failure, and the referee still sets the DC. Things like cover still give out +2 or +5 AC to the target, sidestepping dis/advantage.

The way to get around people wasting time bonus hunting is to have fewer and easy-to-track things be what give bonuses. As with many other things, 3e went overboard on how much stacking you could do; it's not the model to try emulating here.

To each their own. I’d rather use dis/advantage and be done with it than ever have to waste time on players nitpicking +1s. But then I’m weird in that I think you could use dis/advantage for a whole lot more things perfectly well. Like prof bonus, skills, prof saves, class abilities, and a bunch more.

 

[Garthanos]

Under estimating the low numbers is psychological. Some person has a +2 to hit compared to another assuming they are roughly equal adversaries with ones defenses roughly comparable to the others attacks the one with superior attacks deliver both 20 percent more damage and 10 percent more frequent special effects (like proning or whatever depending on versions). Its much more significant if its harder to hit could be triple the chance to hit and so on and yes its less significant if you already have a great chance of hit.

 

[Garthanos]

Sorry, but a 5-10% loss is slight.

I think there is a communication error Lan will correct me if I am wrong he is referring to resolution ... the resolution of +0 +1 +2 +3 +4 + 5 with negatives could be described as 11
the resolution of -5 and 0 and 5 as only 3

 

[Lanefan]

I think there is a communication error Lan will correct me if I am wrong he is referring to resolution ... the resolution of +0 +1 +2 +3 +4 + 5 with negatives could be described as 11
the resolution of -5 and 0 and 5 as only 3

Thanks G but I think instead of this @overgeeked is trying to get across the idea that +1 (5%) or +2 (10%) isn't enough of a bonus to make a real difference. I happen to disagree, in that I can't count the number of times I've seen a simple +1 or -1 make the difference to a roll's outcome, but I acknowledge the point he's trying to make.

You, of course, are quite correct as well - +5 to -5 in steps is more granular than in effect just + 0 - possibilities.

 

[Lanefan]

Sorry, but a 5-10% loss is slight.

Not in my books.

There’s a lot more than that. Auto success, auto failure, and the referee still sets the DC. Things like cover still give out +2 or +5 AC to the target, ...

All those things also exist in a bonus system, so this becomes a wash.

To each their own. I’d rather use dis/advantage and be done with it than ever have to waste time on players nitpicking +1s. But then I’m weird in that I think you could use dis/advantage for a whole lot more things perfectly well. Like prof bonus, skills, prof saves, class abilities, and a bunch more.

Where I think they're already using it for far too much.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great mechanic. But only at certain times-situations, mostly when a result outside the range of 1-20 isn't desired and-or one just wants to push the odds away from a very bad (or very good) roll.

 

[Garthanos]

Thanks G but I think instead of this @overgeeked is trying to get across the idea that +1 (5%) or +2 (10%) isn't enough of a bonus to make a real difference.

I understood just felt you were talking past each other since you meant differences of result resolution

I happen to disagree, in that I can't count the number of times I've seen a simple +1 or -1 make the difference to a roll's outcome, but I acknowledge the point he's trying to make.

D&Ds often all or nothing result makes it significant in my opinion and more so in some editions.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was unclear in what I was saying; what I was suggesting that from a game point of view, I don't think the all-or-nothing of advantage/disadvantage produces good results; it encourages you to find the minimal way to get advantage and then not bother, because the rests is effort with no reward.

Meh, usually there's one nice big fat cinematic element there which you take. The rest? What is really gained? If you are playing old school 'skilled play' D&D, then sure, that would probably be a fairly valid criticism. I'm not aiming for that. I think tactics are fun, and HoML for instance HAS those, but just not to an extreme. You get into a good position, you take cover, you enable some sort of protection, etc. and that does what you need. It also makes the fiction very clear, you ducked behind the pillar, the manticore's spikes ricochet off the stone, breaking away chips of rock and flying off into the darkness, it missed! Why do I need to sort through three different possible explanations for that when one will do?

There are also potentially other things you can say about this too. For example PCs in my game get to pick defenses, and the players make all the checks. So, they have a bunch of different kinds of choices potentially already. In other kinds of situations there is a challenge framework, you are not likely to be rolling a check that represents every factor and element of the success of your plan entirely in one toss of the dice (I mean, maybe that will happen, maybe it won't). So, does every factor have to play into every roll? I don't think so.

All told my feeling was that directness and simplicity and just a very clean interface to story telling is the key thing I'm going for, not an exercise in generating a laundry list of modifiers to scrounge for on every roll. But obviously there can be different factorings of what does what, why, and where in a game.