D&D 5E (2014) With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

[Someone]

I agree that the gorge example is a bit too extreme and is muddying the issue. I've described many times in combat being hit (or failing to hit) as the defender or attacked tripping on a loose rock or slipping on something without the player thinking “I must improve my Balance skill”

Plus, how do you include things like horses losing a horseshoe if you don't place them as reasons of why a check succeeds/fails? Even from a simulationist point of view, horseshoes do get lost, but including rules for each individual random thing would quickly escalate into madness (ok, make a roll in the Blacksmith Incompetence table). In this case, incorporating them into the narrative is a simple and effective solution.

 

[pemerton]

I agree that the gorge example is a bit too extreme and is muddying the issue. I've described many times in combat being hit (or failing to hit) as the defender or attacked tripping on a loose rock or slipping on something without the player thinking “I must improve my Balance skill”

But the gorge is just the stone writ slightly larger. As I said upthread, even agrees that "Rocks fall. Everybody dies!" is no good. But between that and strict process simulation there is a lot of ground, whether it is the gorge, the rock, a gust of wind affecting some flying or jumping manouevre (Does the PC suddenly decide to improve Weather Watching? - and if so, does the GM properly figure the Weather Watching skill into action resolution?), etc.

If you narrate a failed Ride check as falling from a horse, would it logically follow that the character would say "I must get better at riding", or would he maybe say "I must improve my balance so I can stay on the horseback"?

I tried that one upthread. As best I can tell, the response was "Because at the table it is being resolved as a Ride check, in the fiction the PC is thinking of it as pertaining only to those elements of riding proficiency (whatever they might be) that don't overlap with other skills/stats/etc.

In the context of the skill challenge for following someone on horseback, I would say that skills covering animal handling, local geography, riding, balancing and jumping could all apply.

I mentioned that upthread too! And also menteiond that, in my view, discussing this abstracted from questions like "How granular is the skill system?" and "How do augments work?" is pointless. But got little response.

how do you include things like horses losing a horseshoe if you don't place them as reasons of why a check succeeds/fails? Even from a simulationist point of view, horseshoes do get lost, but including rules for each individual random thing would quickly escalate into madness (ok, make a roll in the Blacksmith Incompetence table). In this case, incorporating them into the narrative is a simple and effective solution.

And, as I pointed out upthread, raises the question of how a PC's animal handling/blacksmithing/stabling/grooming skill figures into action resolution.

Which is why I think these objections to the gorge example are in fact just highlighting the problems that arise in a skill system with tightly silo-ed skills and no proper mechanic for augments. Whereas every skill challenge-like system that I'm aware of avoids one or both of these problems (BW: tight skills, generous and far-reaching augment rules; HW/Q: mix of tight and broad skills, generous augment rules; 4e: broad skills, reasonable augment rules via secondary checks in a skill challenge). Hence I think the so-called issue is a non-issue for any of the actual RPG systems in which it might actually arise.

(But if someone runs a hypothetical 3E game with narrow skills, skill challenges and no augments, then I agree they could have the problem. Is anyone actually doing this, though?)

 

[Someone]

But the gorge is just the stone writ slightly larger. As I said upthread, even agrees that "Rocks fall. Everybody dies!" is no good. But between that and strict process simulation there is a lot of ground, whether it is the gorge, the rock, a gust of wind affecting some flying or jumping manouevre (Does the PC suddenly decide to improve Weather Watching? - and if so, does the GM properly figure the Weather Watching skill into action resolution?), etc.

I don't disagree, it's just that the gorge is causing more problems than it should. You know how arguments work in the internet; you compare life to a box of chocolates, and someone will jump in saying that life, in fact, it's not made of cardboard and given as a gift in St. Valentine's day. In any case, there's a sliding scale between "you fail your Ride roll because your poor stanceon the hose needlessly tires it" and "you fail your Ride roll because the universe hates you" and there's no need to use the more extreme. Notice I'm talking about the argument here, not about gaming styles. I'm cool with you using gorges in your games.

Also, I've not checked the thread thoroughly, but isn't the randomness of the die roll supposed to cover things that are out of the PC's control anyway?

 

[pemerton]

I don't disagree, it's just that the gorge is causing more problems than it should.

<snip>

Notice I'm talking about the argument here, not about gaming styles. I'm cool with you using gorges in your games.

No worries. I think we're pretty much on the same side of this particular argument.

Also, I've not checked the thread thoroughly, but isn't the randomness of the die roll supposed to cover things that are out of the PC's control anyway?

That was raised by multiple posters upthread. The only reply I recall was from [MENTION=58416]Johnny3D3D[/MENTION], who (pretty reasonably, I think) gave it as a reason for preferring the GURPS 3d6.

 

[JamesonCourage]

To me, what you are saying here goes back to the PC vs player distinction, plus the issue of design.

I'm going to save some time and say that your post does nothing to change my view on this subject.

You talk about a skill system in which skills are narrowly defined and yet deploying augments "is not feasible". For me, that is a sign simply of a poorly-designed skill and action resolution system, which produces silly fiction (in which, for example, I can never benefit at one and the same time from being both a skilled rider and a shrewd local guide).

This can be easily fixed: roll skill checks on multiple things. Like I talked about.

my sympathy is limited

We've got nowhere to go then. Thanks for the feedback, but I'll probably limit my feedback in this thread to other posters. As always, play what you like

 

[Imaro]

I'm curious how the posters who don't believe there needs to be causality connections between skill use and results view the issue of player empowerment outside of simulation concerns.

If I as a player have chosen, in a skill challenge, to use my riding skill vs. my local knowledge/nature/history skill then am I not saying I want the story of how my character tries to escape to be framed around the use of that particular set (or subset) of my characters abilities?

I feel like this goes back to player agency, by choosing riding I am letting the DM know that I want this part of the narrative, concerning my character, to be about using my riding abilities to try and overcome this particular challenge. However by creating a gorge that suddenly appears before me, aren't you basically taking away my power to steer and shape the narrative through my characters riding ability and instead made it about something else (the geography of the imaginary world perhaps)?

 

[Argyle King]

No worries. I think we're pretty much on the same side of this particular argument.

That was raised by multiple posters upthread. The only reply I recall was from @Johnny3D3D , who (pretty reasonably, I think) gave it as a reason for preferring the GURPS 3d6.

I did, but it is important (to me) to note that I still like some amount of randomness. I only mention that because I remember a few early 4E talks which had considered ditching die rolls completely. What I like about the bell curve created by multiple dice is that it produces more-or-less consistent results, but consistent doesn't necessarily mean predictable.

I have a really easy example to illustrate why I started to like the bell curve:

Back during the twighlight of 3rd Edition; when 4th Edition was just starting to bud into a twinkle in the eye of WoTC, there were many heated conversations concerning why critical fails on a 1 were a bad rule. There was one argument in particular which struck me, and that was that a high level fighter in 3rd Edition had a higher chance of critically failing than a low-level fighter by virtue of needing to make more rolls on a d20 for a full attack. For any given roll on a d20, there is a 5% chance to roll a particular number. With multiple attacks still using only a single d20 roll for each attack roll, that meant that -with each round- a high level fighter had multiple chances of rolling a 1 in contrast to a level one fighter only having one roll.

Now, switch this over to GURPS with 3d6. The average roll of 3d6 is still 10.5. However, with multiple dice, the results of a roll are more likely to be somewhere around that average value. This means that if I have a 'high level' (GURPS does not have levels) fighter who has a sword skill of 16, he will more consistently roll under that number in contrast to someone with a skill of 11 or 12. (Note also: GURPS is a roll under system.) When my fighter character becomes more skilled, that does not also mean he somehow has a higher chance of stabbing himself or befalling some other critically-bad fate. I'm away from my books at the moment, so I forget the exact % chance of rolling each number,

So, what about those criticals? Normally, a critical success in GURPS is a roll of 3 or 4; a criticall failure is a roll of 17 or 18. (If that seems odd, remember, it is a roll-under system.) However, here too there is a rule which makes skill matter. A roll of 10 less than my effective skill is treated as a critical success. Remember my high level fighter with the skill of 16? I can critical by rolling 6 or less. (This rule caps out at 6 though, so someone with a skill of 17 would still need 6 or better to crit.) Also, since my skill is so high, critical failure only happens on an 18 now instead of 17 and 18. Between this and the bell curve, I get a better sense that leveling up means getting better instead of the 3rd Edition model in which being a high level fighter also means I have an increased chance of critical failure.

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm curious how the posters who don't believe there needs to be causality connections between skill use and results view the issue of player empowerment outside of simulation concerns.

If I as a player have chosen, in a skill challenge, to use my riding skill vs. my local knowledge/nature/history skill then am I not saying I want the story of how my character tries to escape to be framed around the use of that particular set (or subset) of my characters abilities?

I feel like this goes back to player agency, by choosing riding I am letting the DM know that I want this part of the narrative, concerning my character, to be about using my riding abilities to try and overcome this particular challenge. However by creating a gorge that suddenly appears before me, aren't you basically taking away my power to steer and shape the narrative through my characters riding ability and instead made it about something else (the geography of the imaginary world perhaps)?

I feel like I'm either not being clear on my thoughts and positions (I hate my writing style but, unfortunately, its born of a long, intense evolution that I cannot reverse...I have tried.) on this or my posts are not being read (tldr).

1) Regarding causality connections between skill use and results - Please see my previous posts regarding the symbiotic nature of skills where multiple disciplines apply simultaenously and through their synthesis the action is resolved the fiction emerges. In the same vein, sometimes a skill works better as a proxy for another (as one is active and the other is passive but they are close to 50/50 in their relevance to the equation). Please see my real life anecdote (trail recognition while running and the impediment to this multi-task as a product of the burden of internal or external distractions/stressors).

2) Regarding player empowerment - Please see the portion of my posts where I state that I encourage (and sometimes demand) my players to enter author stance and narrate the resolution (pass or fail) of a check. If they have specific expectations, underwritten by genre logic, of how the check will resolve itself, I encourage them to deliver it. If they do not, it is understood that I will interpret the result via an equation borne of "fiction-first", "genre/trope logic", "multiple decision-point delivering", "process simulation" elements (with that order being the hierarchy of relevance). Everyone is quite happy with this arrangement and how it manifests from both a chemistry standpoint and a dynamic fiction-delivery standpoint.

 

[Imaro]

I feel like I'm either not being clear on my thoughts and positions (I hate my writing style but, unfortunately, its born of a long, intense evolution that I cannot reverse...I have tried.) on this or my posts are not being read (tldr).

1) Regarding causality connections between skill use and results - Please see my previous posts regarding the symbiotic nature of skills where multiple disciplines apply simultaenously and through their synthesis the action is resolved the fiction emerges. In the same vein, sometimes a skill works better as a proxy for another (as one is active and the other is passive but they are close to 50/50 in their relevance to the equation). Please see my real life anecdote (trail recognition while running and the impediment to this multi-task as a product of the burden of internal or external distractions/stressors).

But this doesn't really apply to my example. In my example I, as a player am choosing to use Ride vs. other skills because I want the scene to be framed around the riding set (or subset) of abilities for my character... in other words, this is specifically the way I want to interact with, and create the narrative for my PC for this part of the SC. I am not expecting or framing it in a way where it is a proxy for another skill or a combination of various skills, and since I as a player should have agency over my character's actions and his/her part of the narrative, I think it's slightly unfair if you as DM decide these things without consulting or coming to some type of agreement with me.

2) Regarding player empowerment - Please see the portion of my posts where I state that I encourage (and sometimes demand) my players to enter author stance and narrate the resolution (pass or fail) of a check. If they have specific expectations, underwritten by genre logic, of how the check will resolve itself, I encourage them to deliver it. If they do not, it is understood that I will interpret the result via an equation borne of "fiction-first", "genre/trope logic", "multiple decision-point delivering", "process simulation" elements (with that order being the hierarchy of relevance). Everyone is quite happy with this arrangement and how it manifests from both a chemistry standpoint and a dynamic fiction-delivery standpoint.

Well I'm glad you have personally made that distinction for your group and table, but...as far as some of the other posters go, I haven't seen any indication (in the discussion or in examples) that this would be something they would first let the player decide whether he wanted to shape or structure in the result phase... and, barring the player did not want to or agreed not to and that he was also ok with it being framed outside of how he shaped the action (as opposed to the result), the DM was then free to narrate whatever he wanted. It's cool that yopu personally do this...but I'm not sure we should assume everyone runs it like this.

Edit: On further examination of your statement, I find I am also curious about how do you handle conflicts that arise between player and DM genre/trope logic? It seems this could cause just as many or even more issues as simulation logic being applied.

 

[Mallus]

I feel like this goes back to player agency, by choosing riding I am letting the DM know that I want this part of the narrative, concerning my character, to be about using my riding abilities to try and overcome this particular challenge. However by creating a gorge that suddenly appears before me, aren't you basically taking away my power to steer and shape the narrative through my characters riding ability and instead made it about something else (the geography of the imaginary world perhaps)?

Let me take a crack at this.

Like other posters have said, D&D has never traditionally been a process simulation. It's task resolution systems have been geared toward results. "Does X happen?" As to why X happened, that's left to the DM (and/or player) to fit the result into the current fiction.

Take combat. A missed attack roll could be described as a clean miss, an opponent dodging out of the way, the PC slipping on a banana peel, or any one of a number of possible fictive dressings applied to the result of the die roll.

For the most part, the rules simply don't care which one is "true". Or, rather, the "true" one is whichever the DM chooses.

A trained combatant will hit more often then their less trained pal. Ditto the skilled rider, who'll avoid the hypothetical gorge more frequently than someone who doesn't know their way around a horse. It is through this increased chance of success player/character agency is reflected/addresses/preserved.

Deliberately problematizing a system which doesn't care concern itself with process, and which operated on a highly abstract, and in the case of older editions speed-oriented, level, is... well, problematic (or at least uncharitable).

Roll the dice. Listen to the DM describe the results. Respond.