# Unsatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system



## twofalls (Mar 27, 2019)

I will be starting a new game in a few months, and find that I am very dissatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system, and would like something more comprehensive, but not terribly more complex. I could just import the system from 3.0 into 5e, however I can well imagine that this is a topic that has been addressed here before, and thought that someone might be able to point me in the direction of some good ideas or information, at least I hope as much.


----------



## iserith (Mar 27, 2019)

Which skill proficiencies do you find D&D 5e is lacking? Use Rope?


----------



## billd91 (Mar 27, 2019)

If you do port over part or all of 3e's skills, my advice would be to *not* break perception and stealth back up into, respectively, Listen/Spot and Hide/Move Silently. There's a reason other systems used the blanket Stealth term when AD&D was mired in Hide in Shadows and Move Silently - it's easier to work with and doesn't effectively require a PC to succeed at both checks to by stealthy.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 27, 2019)

That is good advice. Thanks.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Mar 27, 2019)

I think you need to start by describing the goals you're trying to achieve by changing the system.  You say you're very dissatisfied, but you don't really describe what's dissatisfying.  You also say you want something more comprehensive, but I'm not sure what you think is lacking.  Then you mention 3.0 skill system but, to be honest, I find that system equally comprehensive and needlessly more complex (and 3.5 is worse with all the situational modifiers).  You think there should be more skills?  You don't like the proficiency system?  You think a 10th level character should expect to automatically succeed on skill rolls?  

My problem with skill systems in general is that there are only two broad types of systems. The first one has fairly generic all-encompassing skills that you get to pick a few of. That's not terribly realistic because characters can do things that don't seem related and some skills just become must-haves.  However, the alternative systems that say, "Our Zombo.com system has _unlimited skills_! Anything can be a skill!" can be much worse. The problem with those systems is that you _still_ only get a limited selection of skills, and because the number of skills is so diverse you stand a much better chance of not being able to even roll a die because the DM thinks that, for example, modifying the starship navicomputer requires Electronics instead of Computers, Astrogation, or Repair. It's a pigeonholing problem. Skills stop being about things you're good at and instead _define everything you can't even try to do_.

So, that's kind of what I mean. What kind of outcomes in game play do you want for a skill system? What do you intend for it to accomplish in the game itself? Define your problems, describe your desired outcomes. _Be specific._  "I want more skills," isn't an outcome but, "I want the players to have to make tougher choices," is.  "I want bigger bonuses," isn't an outcome, but, "I want skills to represent a broader range of expertise than 'skilled' and 'not skilled'," is.


----------



## akr71 (Mar 27, 2019)

Having gone from 2e straight to 5e (with a couple decade hiatus), I can't offer insight on how to import 3e skills effectively.

Are there skills missing that you wish were there? If so, I would not hesitate to homebrew them in, selecting an appropriate ability score for it to fall under.

Is it a skill rank system that you find lacking? As in, once you are proficient in a skill, there is no way to improve that skill other than increasing the base ability score or get enough levels to increase your Proficiency Bonus?  If so, I have introduced an Expertise Feat into my game - similar to the Rogue. The Feat can be taken more than once, but not applied to the same skill more than once.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 27, 2019)

twofalls said:


> I will be starting a new game in a few months, and find that I am very dissatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system, and would like something more comprehensive, but not terribly more complex. I could just import the system from 3.0 into 5e, however I can well imagine that this is a topic that has been addressed here before, and thought that someone might be able to point me in the direction of some good ideas or information, at least I hope as much.




before i could even begin, i would need to know more about what you want and what you do not like? I mean you could be unhappy because there are too many skills or way too few. you could be unhappy with proficiency vs tools or fixed ability score to skills or not advancing skill ranks or number of skills as you level, or that they advance too much and make tasks too easy when combined with class features and options.

So i would ask the following:

Can you name two things that the 5e skills system *currently does* *that you like and want to keep?*
Can you name two things that the 5e skills system *currently does* *that you dont like and want to scrap?*
Can you name two things that the 5e skills system *currently does not do** that you like and want to add to it?*
Can you name two things that the 5e skills *currently does not do** that you don't like and want to make sure doesn't get added by your new changes?*

those four questions create a set of boundaries in which we can evaluate a set of changes and basically get an idea as to how well they hit your mark. 

it will also help to get an idea as to what you see as "more" but "not too" complex once we have advantages of each.

"If you don't know where you want to go, you will likely wind up somewhere else."

Edit to add - 

have you looked at XGtE and its more advanced tools proficiencies? Is that more what you want or the wrong way or neither?

Have you looked at the DMG options for changing the skills and traits systems? I find those options and even their variants to have a lot of potential. I personally use some of their auto-success rules from DMG and am strongly considering the implementation of some of the "lighter" proficiency schemes based on backgrounds or ability scores. 

Do you use any support tools you want to keep - such as DDB etc - in your game where changes that can still "fit within that" would be more appealing than ones which drive you away from that tool? For example, IRL, in our last game, we used the DMG proficiency dice variant and it did what we liked a bit better than the proficiency value does, but when we went to full-on DDB for the current campaign it was better overall to drop the proficiency die system since DDB does not currently support that option.


----------



## dave2008 (Mar 27, 2019)

Not sure what your looking for, but we have had a lot of success using the alternate rules in the DMG that decouple skills from a specific ability score.  We have also expanded skills to include backgrounds.  So if you have the "Noble" background you can make an ability check w/ proficiency for anything that relates to being a noble, even if it goes beyond the skills provided by the background.

EDIT:  the emphasis with this approach is the player has to describe what their doing and how their skill or background helps them.  The DM then decides if they get proficiency and what ability score to check.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 27, 2019)

First thank you for these comprehensive responses, they are so far more than I expected. 

I will respond first to the questions that 5ekyu posed as they are more in depth than I had even really thought of myself, and I think they cover what everyone else has asked. My general dislike for the 5e system stems from my feeling that it is too limited in scope, that the skills are so broad that I'm often being left with uncertainty about how to apply them. Also, I have found that more comprehensive systems give players ideas on how to use skills themselves they may not have thought of. 

*Can you name two things that the 5e skills system *currently does* that you like and want to keep?*
_I do like that the current system is simple, and it meshes well with the manner in which D&D is played in that it uses a D20 and is tied to both the proficency bonus and the attribute bonus. I like this and would like to keep it._
*Can you name two things that the 5e skills system *currently does* that you dont like and want to scrap?*
_As I said above, I'd like a system that offers more skills. I really love the Shadowrun system and how skills work there, which is entirely inappropriate for D&D I understand, however the depth and scope of the skills offered lends itself to suggesting to players how to use them, and helps to define characters._
*Can you name two things that the 5e skills system *currently does not do* that you like and want to add to it?*
_I'm certain that the current system can accommodate all that I would like a more robust system to handle, however as stated a couple of times now, I do not like how general it is._ 
*Can you name two things that the 5e skills *currently does not do* that you don't like and want to make sure doesn't get added by your new changes?*
_ My group is filled with new players. Though they have been gaming together now for nearly two years, they have only gamed together with very little variation in the player base. I'd like to expose them to a broader skills system that would lead them to think of using skills in new ways. I think the 5e system would allow them to do most anything they can think of currently, but I wish for them to see new role-playing opportunities that a more robust skill system would suggest to them. 
_
Thank you for your time.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 27, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> Not sure what your looking for, but we have had a lot of success using the alternate rules in the DMG that decouple skills from a specific ability score.  We have also expanded skills to include backgrounds.  So if you have the "Noble" background you can make an ability check w/ proficiency for anything that relates to being a noble, even if it goes beyond the skills provided by the background.
> 
> EDIT:  the emphasis with this approach is the player has to describe what their doing and how their skill or background helps them.  The DM then decides if they get proficiency and what ability score to check.




This is an interesting idea.


----------



## Krachek (Mar 27, 2019)

You may also create a list of « speciality » skill, and allow player to pick some from that list.
And why not give expertise for those skills,  to make sure they are special.
It may give some flavor to character.
5ed is pretty much « house rule as you want. »


----------



## iserith (Mar 27, 2019)

It's also worth noting that, given the rules on How to Play and adjudicate actions, there is a fairly stark difference in game play between D&D 3.Xe and D&D 5e in this area. The former is much more mechanics forward, for lack of a better term, where players are expected to "use skills." In D&D 5e, players just describe what they want to do and the DM decides whether the proposed action is successful, unsuccessful, or if there's uncertainty as to the outcome. If there is uncertainty as to the outcome _and_ a meaningful consequence of failure, the DM calls for an ability check. Otherwise he or she just says what happens.

You don't have to play that way, of course, but that is what the rules say to do and it may help inform what choices you ultimately make for your house rules and how that may impact the intended play experience.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 27, 2019)

twofalls said:


> First thank you for these comprehensive responses, they are so far more than I expected.
> 
> I will respond first to the questions that 5ekyu posed as they are more in depth than I had even really thought of myself, and I think they cover what everyone else has asked. My general dislike for the 5e system stems from my feeling that it is too limited in scope, that the skills are so broad that I'm often being left with uncertainty about how to apply them. Also, I have found that more comprehensive systems give players ideas on how to use skills themselves they may not have thought of.
> 
> ...




Ok so what i am hearing here is that you want more details on specific skill uses - set examples and DCs - both to serve as a guide for the Gm and a nudge for the players. Your hope is that it will drive players to use them more or in different ways and that it will give you a perhaps more consistent framework on how to apply them.

if that is way way off, not what you were putting forth, then i apologize.

So, let me give you my advice based on similar goals but different outlook.

Go the other way - go left instead of right but wind up at the same spot.

MY EXPERIENCE - says that the longer, more detailed laundry list of pre-fabbed noun-verb-dc-result "events" a system gives the less imaginative it leads players and GMs to be. if your system has a list of 30 uses for athletics with modifiers and DCs for all sorts of different thing, the actual play tends to be "fit my actions and choices into this list somehow." if the system says "here are a few skills and ability scores and a mechanic" you get a lot more variety in actual play choices made.

So, based on my experience (in multiple systems and skills etc) and my own current games in 5e, the route i would suggest to try is the following.

Consistent DCs: As Gm come up with your own simple, easy to express "here is what DC means in my games" and stick to it. For things like saves and such, the rules are fine. but for traps and locks and walls and keeping balance, have a common reference that you can express in a hot minute for any scene. Then apply it with lots of obvious descritions that show them what it is. The DMG section on setting skill checks is fantastic for this.

IN MY GAMES: i use the DMG 10-15-20 is it (except for special circumstances.) I think of it as "who set this up and how good were they" or "who could look at this and say "hold my beer" and how good are they"?

DC 10 is easy and it is for cases where neither skill (proficiency) nor aptitude (primary ability and focus) are required. So, an innkeeper doesn't really care about security on the rooms has DC 10 "locks" on all the resident rooms, except for his own - more on that under special." That wall around the village put up by farmers etc might be only DC 10 to climb if they had no soldiers experienced at fortifications 

DC 15 is for the "guy" has either skill (proficiency) or aptitude (primary ability or focus.) So an innkeeper who used to be a burglar but long since retired might be Dc 15 locks guy. That village wall might be DC 15 if there is a retired soldier or carpenter or mason.

DC 20 is for "masters", the guy is an expert with both skill (proficiency) and aptitude (primary focus and ability.) You can figure this one out from the above.

SPECIAL: this gets into a +5 or -5 (advanatage or disadvantage) for how much effort or time or resource went into it above the norm. A rich shopkeeper willing to spend a lot more money on security or a village where their is someone with wealth or extra manpower backing the wall - +5 (advantage for help - if you will) to whatever the DC would be. The reverse for someone who skimps and cuts corners or really does not really care - or for some cases where they had to rush the finish and its not really a fully complete thing yet. 
Extra time/resources +5
Insufficient time or resources -5


This produces 5 - 25 range across the campaign - same at 10th as at 15th as at 1st. My PCs met a DC 20 and a DC 25 check in their first session at level 2 and just met a DC 10 one recently. be consistent and show them descriptively how they can see the "DC" in the setting. 

Then if they walk up to some mud village with a fancy wall or some dive with a very well-built security system, they can go "what is up with that?"

Auto-success - i use the DC10 easy is automatic for proficienct checks unless you have advantage rule from the DMG. 

I generally disregard the other DCs for non-character trait tasks. i find 5e is rather inconsistent in their DCs in modules and such and  *really* what matters is the DC you set.

I would recommend you look at the DMG skill proficiency options for *less skills* - specifically for background based skills, where what is required is for the PC to tie "what he is doing" to his background and training, not to a skill list. That moves the "what i do" more into the dramatic than the "checklist". This syncs well with a descriptive-based Dc as i describe above.

So, my suggestion is to try to spark the imagination with "less rules specifics and definition" before you go to more defined lists.

My group has played tons of systems at all sorts of degrees of crunch from 1e dnd to black book Traveller to HERO to shadowrun to Cyberpunk 2020 to Amber to vampire to T20 to traveller with Striker to RollMaster etc etc etc. We never found "more crunch" or "more lists" to spur more imagination. They did shape the events, but in doing so they also limited our in-play perspectives and outlooks.

Also, for most skill use i always point to the Ability Check definition in the PHB where any failure can be a "some progress with setback" - not just pass/fail. that is an awfully potent tool in the Gm to bring skills to life in the campaign. 

"I go hunting and scavenging." 
"Make Wisdom (survivial) foraging check. The area you know is sparse but not barren - so wont be that hard but not easy enough for sure success." Code word for DC 15
"Rolled net 11. Dang it"
"Ok so you found some smaller game and bagged some stuff. Get 3 lbs (Wisdom modifer) and roll a Perception check."
"What?"
other players "You just went from the hunter to the hunted - cuz some beastie just made *its* hunting check and found you! HAHAH!!"
Everyone grabs dice in anticipation of the *possible* conflict depending on how our scavenger handled himself.







Final bit - Definitely use the Swapping ability scores bit from the PHB - Strength (Intimidation) is an obvious case for brute force coercion. Con (Performance) perhaps for more subtle ways of influence that may take all night (in-game time not in game-play time unless that is your thing!) 


***

That said, this is how i would recommend trying to achieve the goals you set forth, but it is the opposite direction you had originally leaned. if thats because you have tried lighter more self-managed-consistent approaches and found them lacking then hey, thats fine. But in my experience, no longer list is gonna be the right fit that hits the imagination dial to 11 and also gives you the room to maneuver as freely and consistently. thats because a list tells you to check the list for how tough the wall is... while the approach i outline above is for *you* the Gm to decide *how tough the wall is* based on your chgsen setting and reasons and then tie the description and DC together to match that.

DC IMX is better when the first question is WHY and the rest follows from that. 

Hope this helps even tho it is not the direction you were leaning.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 27, 2019)

iserith said:


> It's also worth noting that, given the rules on How to Play and adjudicate actions, there is a fairly stark difference in game play between D&D 3.Xe and D&D 5e in this area. The former is much more mechanics forward, for lack of a better term, where players are expected to "use skills." In D&D 5e, players just describe what they want to do and the DM decides whether the proposed action is successful, unsuccessful, or if there's uncertainty as to the outcome. If there is uncertainty as to the outcome _and_ a meaningful consequence of failure, the DM calls for an ability check. Otherwise he or she just says what happens.
> 
> You don't have to play that way, of course, but that is what the rules say to do and it may help inform what choices you ultimately make for your house rules and how that may impact the intended play experience.



This.  Read the Intro section of the PHB and the Basic rules for the core play loop of:

1.  Player declares character actions
2.  DM determines if result is successful, unsuccessful, or uncertain.
  2a. If uncertain, DM calls for ability check and sets DC.
3.  DM narrates outcomes.

The repeat.  This is, as [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] notes, different from previous editions.

I also recommend reading the DMG sections on the Role of the Dice (p 232)  and further recommend the "Middle path" presented therein. 

These two things form the core of how I run 5e.  You may find it helpful as well.


----------



## Oofta (Mar 27, 2019)

There has been some great advice here that I don't think I could improve on. I particularly like the idea of backgrounds giving general knowledge and background not tied to specific skills.

There are times when I ask my players if it's okay if we do a 1-shot with a different style or rule implementation just to see if it "fits".  There is no one way that's going to work for everyone, so experiment a bit.

In addition to what others have said, I'd just say that I'm pretty flexible on how skills are applied.  Want to intimidate or assist in intimidating someone using a strength (athletics) check to lift them up in the air one handed?  Go for it!  Might backfire depending on the NPC though, so I might ask for a wisdom (insight) check before you try it.

In my experience the "looser" I can make the implementation of the rules while abiding by the spirit of the rules while still being consistent the more creativity I seem to get out of my players.  Don't get me wrong, I enjoy video games that have skill trees as an example, but I just don't think it's a great fit for this version of the game.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Mar 27, 2019)

iserith said:


> It's also worth noting that, given the rules on How to Play and adjudicate actions, there is a fairly stark difference in game play between D&D 3.Xe and D&D 5e in this area. The former is much more mechanics forward, for lack of a better term, where players are expected to "use skills." In D&D 5e, players just describe what they want to do and the DM decides whether the proposed action is successful, unsuccessful, or if there's uncertainty as to the outcome. If there is uncertainty as to the outcome _and_ a meaningful consequence of failure, the DM calls for an ability check. Otherwise he or she just says what happens.
> .




It's funny because this how I play every system that has skills, 3e included.  "I want to do this, do I need to roll anything?"  "Yes, skill x is most appropriate."

I think you are describing an rp style.  Maybe 5e encourages that style more than others, I don't know.

And sometimes rolling a skill is appropriate even when success is guaranteed because:

a) my player has invested heavily in a skill and 'wants' to roll a dice and show off how cool his character is at doing skill (x).  Who am I do deny a player a chance to throw a die if it brings them joy?  Players tend to approach problems using the tools they are best at and, often, like to show those things off.

b) Sometimes I use degrees of success which doesn't usually affect anything other than narrative.  So it lets a player or GM narrate a cooler description or outcome if they succeed with style.

Usually 'b' comes as a result of 'a'.  I'm happy to narrate a cool success without the use of dice too.

 [MENTION=23718]twofalls[/MENTION]

The skill list in 5e is good.
Expand the use of Investigation a bit and make Perception less of a catch-all
Use Medicine more

If you were looking for a way to incorporate point-buy skills in 5e, then I'd probably have suggestions but it doesn't look that way.  [MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] had lots of good suggestions.

- As suggested, Definitely separate stats from skills.  Use the skill/stat combinations that best suit the situation/action.  

- I've done away with 'tools as skill proficiency' and just made each tool a 'profession' skill.  A lack of tools either makes it impossible to do that skill or gives you disadvantage.  It hasn't changed much - it's really mostly a change in semantics (using Burglary instead of 'Thieve's Tools', for instance) but I like the change.


----------



## iserith (Mar 27, 2019)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> It's funny because this how I play every system that has skills, 3e included.




Yes, lots of people play a game as if they are playing some other game. Then some of those same people complain that the game doesn't work as well as they might hope.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 27, 2019)

Oofta said:


> There has been some great advice here that I don't think I could improve on. I particularly like the idea of backgrounds giving general knowledge and background not tied to specific skills.
> 
> There are times when I ask my players if it's okay if we do a 1-shot with a different style or rule implementation just to see if it "fits".  There is no one way that's going to work for everyone, so experiment a bit.
> 
> ...




i will second this... strongly.

Example - I have a cliff. that cliff is an obstacle (they need to beat it or avoid it) not just an impediment (no-fail climb at slow pace). because of WHY (loose rocks but fairly solid, irregular handholds and footholds, some vines some strong some not.) i assign it Dc 15 climb needed. 

So, when Mr Strong guy describes climbing it by grunting his way up the more silid holds and ledges  i i let that bet athletics check with strength. maybe i make it CON if its really really long climb. he will likely be avoiding the vines for the most part due to his being a heavy sucker.

But when MR Halfling nimble guy says they want to use the vines, swing back and forth avoiding the most lightweight but since they are small and light... that is acrobatics - likely dex.

They key is, to me, to not link a TASK to a skill but let the skill choice flow from the HOW and the WHY. Those two folks are going about beating that wall in two very different ways each using a different aspect of the scene to their benefit. Both are "climbing the wall" but that should not mean "climbing" is under strength or athletics necessarily.

l


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 27, 2019)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> It's funny because this how I play every system that has skills, 3e included.  "I want to do this, do I need to roll anything?"  "Yes, skill x is most appropriate."
> 
> *I think you are describing an rp style.  Maybe 5e encourages that style more than others, I don't know.*
> 
> ...




Re the bold, i agree completely. Whether its been HERo, traveller ad infinitum, cyberpunk etc this divide to me is not system driven or forced. Some of the most complex number crunchy systems plkay the same way with skills and talent being WHAt-HOW-WHY driven rather than pick-a-list. 

its not new to 5e or even necessarily strongly supported in 5e. Its just perhaps such a striking difference from 4e i guess that to some it seems new or a focus.

Then again, I am always amazed at the generational shock. i think perhaps some of my own perceptions are colored by the realization of how many folks came in new to RPGs in 5e and so they see it as "what is" sometimes with little knowledge of "what has come before." See it all the time with broader social media posts about someone with a "new idea" which is like "adding a death spiral" or "adding called shot" or... insert any number of things that have been done, house ruled, used in other RPGs or DND splat books for decades.


----------



## bedir than (Mar 27, 2019)

One of the ways that you can expand the skill list is by adding tools. I know, who needs more boring tools, but within the 5e structure there are a ton of medieval/early-Ren skills/tools that aren't covered. Allowing players, by just granting an extra tool, to pick these helps their character know things that may only be useful in specific social/exploration contexts, but also strengthens the "who am I" of creation.

Farm tools for example. Currently building a farmer is a custom background that doesn't have a lot of skills to support it, and yet working the land was quite common. Grabbing the examples from XGtE you could see some overlap/help with checks in Survival, Nature and Animal Handling.

I added Appraiser's Tools for a travelling merchant. They aren't a jeweler/locksmith/etc. They are someone who knows what things are worth and how to trade/buy/sell. A small scale, magnifying glass, and ledger all make sense to have. It could help them with Persuasion, History, Arcana and Religion.


----------



## MockingBird (Mar 27, 2019)

Xanathars Guide to Everything has a nice section on expanding skills with tools. Probably worth a look for you.


----------



## ad_hoc (Mar 27, 2019)

This may be due to framing.

In 5e characters don't 'use skills' they perform actions and the DM may assign a skill to add proficiency to an uncertain outcome.

So skills aren't a construction on what can be performed. This is different than tools which are used.

If you want to change skills you may need to change the ability Check system itself. Rolls are not nearly as common in 5e as they were in 3e for example.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Mar 27, 2019)

iserith said:


> Yes, lots of people play a game as if they are playing some other game. Then some of those same people complain that the game doesn't work as well as they might hope.
> 
> ¯\_(ツ)_/¯




I don’t get what you are saying.  Are you saying that my 3.5 games didn’t work out as I hoped because I played them in the same role playing style that you are advocating for 5e and that that rp style was ‘wrong’ for 3.5? 

5e didn’t exist yet, so if I was playing it the way 5e is supposed to be played, I didn’t realize it.  I actually enjoyed my 3.5 games. 

Or are you suggesting that I should stop complaining about 5e because I seem to be playing it right?  I do complain a lot, so there’s that.


----------



## iserith (Mar 27, 2019)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> I don’t get what you are saying.  Are you saying that my 3.5 games didn’t work out as I hoped because I played them in the same role playing style that you are advocating for 5e and that that rp style was ‘wrong’ for 3.5?
> 
> 5e didn’t exist yet, so if I was playing it the way 5e is supposed to be played, I didn’t realize it.  I actually enjoyed my 3.5 games.
> 
> Or are you suggesting that I should stop complaining about 5e because I seem to be playing it right?  I do complain a lot, so there’s that.   I do house rule a lot.  Even monopoly.




I can't say anything about your games because I don't know you or your game. But commonly people run or play, say, a newer version of D&D as if it is some older version of D&D and run into problems or dissatisfaction that is blamed on the newer version of the game. I did that myself when I stopped running D&D 3.5e and started running D&D 4e. It's worth thinking about that when considering house rules in my view: "Am I playing this game in the manner the current rules intend or I am bringing older approaches and methods into it that don't jive as well with this rules set?"


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Mar 27, 2019)

iserith said:


> I can't say anything about your games because I don't know you or your game. But commonly people run or play, say, a newer version of D&D as if it is some older version of D&D and run into problems or dissatisfaction that is blamed on the newer version of the game. I did that myself when I stopped running D&D 3.5e and started running D&D 4e. It's worth thinking about that when considering house rules in my view: "Am I playing this game in the manner the current rules intend or I am bringing older approaches and methods into it that don't jive as well with this rules set?"




Ah, I see.   I’m just saying that what you are describing feels more like a style of play rather than a codified ruleset.


----------



## iserith (Mar 27, 2019)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> Ah, I see.   I’m just saying that what you are describing feels more like a style of play rather than a codified ruleset.




I paraphrased what the D&D 5e rules actually say though.


----------



## Jacob Lewis (Mar 27, 2019)




----------



## Blue (Mar 27, 2019)

13th Age is a d20 that came out a bit before 5e from lead designers of 3ed and 4e.  It's skill system is very simple and very comprehensive.

Everyone gets 8 background points to split between a few backgrounds, none above +5.  Backgrounds are encouraged to be descriptive.  You aren't "Sailor +4", you're "First Mate on the pirate schooner Roll-yer-bones +4" or "Enlisted crew on HDM (His Draconic Magesty's) _Wavehammer_ +4".  Or "Quartermaster on a succession of cargoships for the Concord Trading Company +4".

Then, it's all a does this fit?  There's a great story I heard secondhand about a party trying to console a widow who's son had been killed.  One of the characters was a "Captain from the Iron Wall" (sees giant monster attacks often) or something like that who said "Do you know how many letters I had to write to grieving families that their sons and daughters wouldn't be coming home?  I know the words and the motions to settle the widow down."  So the background was allowed.

YES, at a table where players are trying to game the system and a DM who won't talk to players if things are out-of-hand it cane lead to players trying to have their best background apply to everything.  If you have players where a little honest communication wouldn't clear that up, then go for something more formalized.

But otherwise it's remarkable comprehensive while being ridiculously simple.  With the added bonus of constantly fleshing out characters AND providing the DM hooks into your backstory.  Just made of win.


----------



## Bawylie (Mar 27, 2019)

Yep. It’s underdeveloped and over-relief-on. 

I find it best to just eliminate it altogether and rely on ability checks with some discussion of whether or not a proficiency bonus should apply considering a character’s race, class, or background. 

If I were re-doing skills altogether, I might categorize them into broad groups like “tools,” “education,” and “training.” Then I’d see to it that each race, class, and background got to pick selections from those categories. Races might get to pick from education and training. Backgrounds might get to pick from tools and education. And class would get to pick from all 3 categories. 

I can’t decide whether weapon/armor use falls under tools or training. There are arguments for both. 

After that it’s a matter of aggregating lists and recommending defaults.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 27, 2019)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> I don’t get what you are saying.  Are you saying that my 3.5 games didn’t work out as I hoped because I played them in the same role playing style that you are advocating for 5e and that that rp style was ‘wrong’ for 3.5?



Both 3E and 5E use the same basic process of play (DM describes, player declares, DM sets DC, roll if necessary). The only difference is a minor change in how those rules are presented, since 3E wanted to do the math of establishing the DC for you, and 5E just has the DM figure out an appropriate DC.

Some people read way too much into that difference of presentation, but it's safe to ignore their opinions.


----------



## James Crane (Mar 27, 2019)

I'd like to take this time to say I miss non-weapon proficiencies from 2e. It assumed not everyone knew how to read and write, which I like? It was a little now exacting, perhaps to the point of being a little bloated. One thing I noticed when I used it with 5E players is they liked the way it filled out their character. They got a better idea of who they were and what they could do. They know swimming and basket weaving? There is a story there.

I'd like a system like that ported to 5E. It would the same as the current system but you'd get to choose more of them to make up for their more specialized focus.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 27, 2019)

James Crane said:


> I'd like to take this time to say I miss non-weapon proficiencies from 2e. It assumed not everyone knew how to read and write, which I like? It was a little now exacting, perhaps to the point of being a little bloated. One thing I noticed when I used it with 5E players is they liked the way it filled out their character. They got a better idea of who they were and what they could do. They know swimming and basket weaving? There is a story there.
> 
> I'd like a system like that ported to 5E. It would the same as the current system but you'd get to choose more of them to make up for their more specialized focus.




Actually, it’s already there.  With a little creativity, a player can work with their DM to generate a background that is proficient in swimming and basket weaving.


----------



## SkidAce (Mar 28, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> Not sure what your looking for, but we have had a lot of success using the alternate rules in the DMG that decouple skills from a specific ability score.  We have also expanded skills to include backgrounds.  So if you have the "Noble" background you can make an ability check w/ proficiency for anything that relates to being a noble, even if it goes beyond the skills provided by the background.
> 
> EDIT:  the emphasis with this approach is the player has to describe what their doing and how their skill or background helps them.  The DM then decides if they get proficiency and what ability score to check.




Yes, we have been treating Backgrounds like Fate Aspects and allowing skill rolls based on them for a while.  It seems to make sense.

"I was a farmer, can I use my proficiency on the nature check to see if the the crops are okay?" etc...


----------



## Charlaquin (Mar 28, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> Both 3E and 5E use the same basic process of play (DM describes, player declares, DM sets DC, roll if necessary). The only difference is a minor change in how those rules are presented, since 3E wanted to do the math of establishing the DC for you, and 5E just has the DM figure out an appropriate DC.
> 
> Some people read way too much into that difference of presentation, but it's safe to ignore their opinions.




The passive aggression is strong with this one.


----------



## Horwath (Mar 28, 2019)

We reduced the number of skills for a few.

thief tools and sleight of hand were merged into Thievery, like the 4E version. You still need to have the tools(as an item) on you do disarm traps or pick locks

Animal handling was merged into Survival


Investigation was merged into Perception with few drawbacks:

You cannot find traps and hidden locks above DC10 if you do not have Thievery proficiency.

You cannot use Perception or Thievery on magic traps if you do not have proficiency in Arcana.


----------



## Azzy (Mar 28, 2019)

Since the only way to gain more skills is with the Skilled feat, you might want to add another way to gain skills if you're going to increase the number of skills significantly.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 28, 2019)

iserith said:


> I can't say anything about your games because I don't know you or your game. But commonly people run or play, say, a newer version of D&D as if it is some older version of D&D and run into problems or dissatisfaction that is blamed on the newer version of the game. I did that myself when I stopped running D&D 3.5e and started running D&D 4e. It's worth thinking about that when considering house rules in my view: "Am I playing this game in the manner the current rules intend or I am bringing older approaches and methods into it that don't jive as well with this rules set?"




I'm certainly guilty of that. I'm 50, and I've run D&D games since I was 9. I have a horrible time mixing rules up between editions, and I generally think that 5e is the most elegant and well formed version of D&D ever created. I'm very story oriented and always have been, so the crunch is less important to me than the ability to spin the story and have interesting NPC interactions. That said, crunch is still necessary, we are playing a game after all, and my players are all telling me what great fun they are having, but are often stuck without ideas on how to handle difficult situations (part of it is that there is no natural leader right now in the player mix). I was hoping that a more robust skill system would encourage new ideas and help guide them a bit with regards to understanding what their characters can do. This works well in Shadowrun (my fav rpg setting), but that is a very system heavy game and the skill system doesn't translate to D&D at all.


----------



## iserith (Mar 28, 2019)

Charlaquin said:


> The passive aggression is strong with this one.




And anyway sometimes minor differences in a game's fundamentals lead to big differences in the play experience.


----------



## iserith (Mar 28, 2019)

twofalls said:


> I'm certainly guilty of that. I'm 50, and I've run D&D games since I was 9. I have a horrible time mixing rules up between editions, and I generally think that 5e is the most elegant and well formed version of D&D ever created. I'm very story oriented and always have been, so the crunch is less important to me than the ability to spin the story and have interesting NPC interactions. That said, crunch is still necessary, we are playing a game after all, and my players are all telling me what great fun they are having, but are often stuck without ideas on how to handle difficult situations (part of it is that there is no natural leader right now in the player mix). I was hoping that a more robust skill system would encourage new ideas and help guide them a bit with regards to understanding what their characters can do. This works well in Shadowrun (my fav rpg setting), but that is a very system heavy game and the skill system doesn't translate to D&D at all.




Can you share any examples of the sorts of situations with which they struggle? Maybe there are some other solutions to consider.


----------



## Oofta (Mar 28, 2019)

twofalls said:


> I'm certainly guilty of that. I'm 50, and I've run D&D games since I was 9. I have a horrible time mixing rules up between editions, and I generally think that 5e is the most elegant and well formed version of D&D ever created. I'm very story oriented and always have been, so the crunch is less important to me than the ability to spin the story and have interesting NPC interactions. That said, crunch is still necessary, we are playing a game after all, and my players are all telling me what great fun they are having, but are often stuck without ideas on how to handle difficult situations (part of it is that there is no natural leader right now in the player mix). I was hoping that a more robust skill system would encourage new ideas and help guide them a bit with regards to understanding what their characters can do. This works well in Shadowrun (my fav rpg setting), but that is a very system heavy game and the skill system doesn't translate to D&D at all.




If people seem to be stuck I will on a fairly regular basis give them hints/nudges to move them forward.  It's sometimes difficult, especially for newer gamers, to understand how much freedom they really have.  So there are times when I will remind them of some breadcrumb they seem to have forgotten.  Other times I'll just recap what's going on, especially if it involves something happened last session. 

At other times I'll have an NPC or familiar suggest an action, or even give them a non-combat "side-kick" that can offer helpful hints now and then.  

While you have to be careful with this because you don't want to play the PCs for the characters, it can be tough from behind the DM's screen to fully communicate a scene.  On the other side of the screen people don't always understand what options are really available or remember details that you're super familiar with because you just prepped for the session.

Another thing I do is have a sheet where I jot down what the various skills are, to kind of jog _my_ memory.  I sometimes also make quick notes about the PC's skills and backgrounds.  Not the actual numbers, just what they're proficient in.  If a PC has really played up some aspect of their character, like how they love wine I'll give them advantage on checks related to wine-making or alcohol in general.

Hopefully some of this helps.  I personally try to not get too caught up in detailed mechanics of skills and how people express what they are trying to do.   I do try to set up an array of challenges that can have multiple solutions so I don't have 2-3 skills that are on the "go-to" list.

Good luck!


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2019)

iserith said:


> In D&D 5e, players just describe what they want to do and the DM decides whether the proposed action is successful, unsuccessful, or if there's uncertainty as to the outcome. If there is uncertainty as to the outcome _and_ a meaningful consequence of failure




I am not seeing the words "_and_ a meaningful consequence of failure" or equivalent in the ability checks section of the PHB.


----------



## iserith (Mar 28, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I am not seeing the words "_and_ a meaningful consequence of failure" or equivalent in the ability checks section of the PHB.




DMG, page 237, "Using Ability Scores." I know this section by heart.

"Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure." It also says stuff like "When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores." It suggests that a roll is appropriate when the attempted tasks falls somewhere between impossible and trivial, but that must also take into account whether failure is meaningful or not. As to what is or isn't possible, of course, is determined by the DM as is what constitutes a meaningful consequence for failure, given the context of the situation.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 28, 2019)

iserith said:


> DMG, page 237, "Using Ability Scores." I know this section by heart.




Danggit. This would be the perfect opportunity to farm a laugh from you with a joking reference to a long dead thread. Something like "Wait? Someone actually reads the DMG?" 


. . . But that would seriously risk coming across as a slight on S'mon and I'm definitely never aiming to attack anyone here with my jokes.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2019)

iserith said:


> DMG, page 237, "Using Ability Scores." I know this section by heart.
> 
> "Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure." It also says stuff like "When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores." It suggests that a roll is appropriate when the attempted tasks falls somewhere between impossible and trivial, but that must also take into account whether failure is meaningful or not.




OK I have it open now - it does not say "but that must also take into account whether failure is meaningful or not", so the "only roll if meaningful consequence" advice arguably contradicts "If (the task is neither automatic nor impossible), some kind of roll is appropriate".

I generally interpret it that if repeated checks will eventually succeed, just say "You eventually succeed" (it says this under Multiple Ability Checks), but that the 'meaningful consequence' line is not meant to be a serious barrier to making checks.

Also the whole section seems very loosely worded. Unsurprising given that "Rolling with it" and "Ignoring the Dice" describe two diametrically opposed approaches, neither forbidden.


----------



## Bawylie (Mar 28, 2019)

S'mon said:


> OK I have it open now - it does not say "but that must also take into account whether failure is meaningful or not", so the "only roll if meaningful consequence" advice arguably contradicts "If (the task is neither automatic nor impossible), some kind of roll is appropriate".
> 
> I generally interpret it that if repeated checks will eventually succeed, just say "You eventually succeed" (it says this under Multiple Ability Checks), but that the 'meaningful consequence' line is not meant to be a serious barrier to making checks.
> 
> Also the whole section seems very loosely worded. Unsurprising given that "Rolling with it" and "Ignoring the Dice" describe two diametrically opposed approaches, neither forbidden.




You might re-read that. It says it’s “often appropriate” to roll when the task is neither automatic nor impossible. Which means, necessarily, it is sometimes not appropriate. Often isn’t always. Whereas later it says “only roll” when...

It’s not that meaningful consequence is a barrier to a roll - it’s that a lack of meaningful consequences means a check shouldn’t be required. 

I don’t think this is loosely worded either. 

Nevertheless, the rules serve the DM, in all cases. So if these guidelines don’t work for you, then do what does work for you instead. But a plain reading here is perfectly consistent.


----------



## iserith (Mar 28, 2019)

S'mon said:


> OK I have it open now - it does not say "but that must also take into account whether failure is meaningful or not", so the "only roll if meaningful consequence" advice arguably contradicts "If (the task is neither automatic nor impossible), some kind of roll is appropriate".




It seems clear to me that, for a roll to be called for, these things need to all be true since they are put forth in the rules: Not impossible, not trivial, meaningful consequence for failure (<- DMG), chance of failure, and uncertain outcome (<- PHB). This takes all the relevant rules into account and is what I paraphrase in the various threads that discuss this matter.



S'mon said:


> I generally interpret it that if repeated checks will eventually succeed, just say "You eventually succeed" (it says this under Multiple Ability Checks), but that the 'meaningful consequence' line is not meant to be a serious barrier to making checks.




We can't have an ability check without an accompanying task since the outcomes of those tasks are what ability checks resolve. So when something is referred to as an ability check, we have to look at it as a task that falls into the requirements the PHB and DMG lay out - not impossible, not trivial, meaningful consequence for failure, chance of failure, and uncertain outcome. The Multiple Ability Checks section talks about repeating a task that meets those requirements, which characters can do unless failing the check makes the approach to the goal impossible. (In which case, they need to change their approach to the goal to have another shot at success, which the DM may decide is harder due to the previous failure.)



S'mon said:


> Also the whole section seems very loosely worded.




I would have written it to be much tighter, but I didn't have a say. What we have is workable. But as [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION] says, nobody reads the DMG anyway, especially not DMs with experience in other games, so I have this exchange frequently enough where I have this section committed to memory already!


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 28, 2019)

Hey! I'm not actually saying that.

I'm just recalling that thread (I think it was back on WotC's forum when they still had a forum) where some DM asked if they ought to read the DMG . . . and several people responded with variations of "No."

Oh. I guess I am kinda saying that.


----------



## BookBarbarian (Mar 28, 2019)

Whats a DMG?

I kid, I kid. I know it's the book with those sweet magic items in it.


----------



## Bawylie (Mar 28, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> Hey! I'm not actually saying that.
> 
> I'm just recalling that thread (I think it was back on WotC's forum when they still had a forum) where some DM asked if they ought to read the DMG . . . and several people responded with variations of "No."
> 
> Oh. I guess I am kinda saying that.




Good ole 3 book model:

Player’s Spellbook, now with more spells!
Dungeon Master’s 300 pages on rule zero
And Monster Manual, volume 1 of 35.


----------



## Oofta (Mar 28, 2019)

S'mon said:


> OK I have it open now - it does not say "but that must also take into account whether failure is meaningful or not", so the "only roll if meaningful consequence" advice arguably contradicts "If (the task is neither automatic nor impossible), some kind of roll is appropriate".
> 
> I generally interpret it that if repeated checks will eventually succeed, just say "You eventually succeed" (it says this under Multiple Ability Checks), but that the 'meaningful consequence' line is not meant to be a serious barrier to making checks.
> 
> Also the whole section seems very loosely worded. Unsurprising given that "Rolling with it" and "Ignoring the Dice" describe two diametrically opposed approaches, neither forbidden.




Yeah, I disagree with Iserith on this one.  Sometimes letting the players roll is appropriate even if there is no chance of success or failure.  A good example is the case of the players that suspect an NPC is lying when they're really telling the truth.  If you don't call for (or allow) an insight check then they know the NPC isn't being deceptive.  Makes solving who-done-its really easy I guess.  Just walk around to all the suspects and ask if they did it.  The first time the DM asks for an insight check you have your culprit.  

I don't want to start another long argument about that, just saying that I think he puts too much credence in a one liner buried at the end of a paragraph that just seems to be intended as general guidance.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Mar 28, 2019)

Blue said:


> 13th Age is a d20 that came out a bit before 5e from lead designers of 3ed and 4e.  It's skill system is very simple and very comprehensive.
> 
> Everyone gets 8 background points to split between a few backgrounds, none above +5.  Backgrounds are encouraged to be descriptive.  You aren't "Sailor +4", you're "First Mate on the pirate schooner Roll-yer-bones +4" or "Enlisted crew on HDM (His Draconic Magesty's) _Wavehammer_ +4".  Or "Quartermaster on a succession of cargoships for the Concord Trading Company +4".
> 
> ...




This, absolutely. 

I will straight up just ask for an ability check with proficiency if a background/backstory element applies to the task at hand. Obv I’d they have a relevant skill or tool prof, that works too, but I’m fine with rewarding players who call back to their background.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Mar 28, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Yeah, I disagree with Iserith on this one.  Sometimes letting the players roll is appropriate even if there is no chance of success or failure.  A good example is the case of the players that suspect an NPC is lying when they're really telling the truth.  If you don't call for (or allow) an insight check then they know the NPC isn't being deceptive.  Makes solving who-done-its really easy I guess.  Just walk around to all the suspects and ask if they did it.  The first time the DM asks for an insight check you have your culprit.
> 
> I don't want to start another long argument about that, just saying that I think he puts too much credence in a one liner buried at the end of a paragraph that's just seems to be intended as general guidance.




Well, for your example, the result of a failed roll is the pc doesn’t know for sure.  Let the paranoia tear your players apart.  That’s a meaningful consequence.  

I semi agree with isereth.  If a difficult lock needs picking and there are no time constraints, why bother rolling?  There’s no meaningful consequence.  I wouldn’t have them roll over and over until they succeeded. OTOH,  If they have 3 rounds to succeed before the ogre guard comes back, failure will have a consequence. 

As I mentioned earlier, sometimes a pc skill is so high that you know they auto succeed it’s not worth rolling but they want to roll anyways.  I’m cool with letting players show off their character’s abilities.  

Before I call for a roll, I always think, “what will I say if they fail?”

If the answer is boring and doesn’t add anything to the plot then I find it better to just to tell them they succeed.  If it forces them in to a different approach, then that’s a meaningful consequence.  Can’t unlock the door? Now you have to bash it and make noise. 

FATE rpg encourages this approach.   3.5 didn’t encourage or discourage any particular approach. 

I just don’t want to bore my players with pointless rolls.


----------



## iserith (Mar 28, 2019)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> Well, for your example, the result of a failed roll is the pc doesn’t know for sure.  Let the paranoia tear your players apart.  That’s a meaningful consequence.




Sure. In addition, the rules have two tools that the DM can employ: 


Progress combined with a setback (PHB p. 174)
Passive checks (PHB p. 175)

So if the DM fears that some aspect of the adjudication is going to give away information that the DM does not want to give away, then use a passive check ("...used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice...").

Or, upon failing an ability check, the DM can use progress combined with a setback. For example, "The subject is displaying body language indicative of untruthfulness, but she also signals that she knows that you saw her and adjusts her behavior." Now perhaps future attempts to discern truthfulness fails outright. Or the NPC is in a position of power and is insulted, leading to further complication. This can go a lot of different ways other than "You dunno."

It's a pretty weird position that some people take where they say they don't agree with rules I've quoted because they can't figure out how to use the said rules to solve a problem of their own making.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Sometimes letting the players roll is appropriate even if there is no chance of success or failure.




I agree - one I recall was a magically warded door with an exceptionally high break DC - so high a PC rolled a natural 20 on an Athletics check and still failed to open it. If I had said "Don't roll" then they wouldn't have attempted to open the door or wouldn't have received the information that the door was incredibly hard to break.

Often though I like to tell players the target DC so they they can tell me "I auto pass" or "I can't make that".

In any case, different approaches suit different situations, different GM styles, and even different genres. And the 5e guidance is very supportive of a variety of approaches - it seeks to empower the DM, not constrain him or her.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 28, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Yeah, I disagree with Iserith on this one.  Sometimes letting the players roll is appropriate even if there is no chance of success or failure.  A good example is the case of the players that suspect an NPC is lying when they're really telling the truth.  If you don't call for (or allow) an insight check then they know the NPC isn't being deceptive.  Makes solving who-done-its really easy I guess.  Just walk around to all the suspects and ask if they did it.  The first time the DM asks for an insight check you have your culprit.
> 
> I don't want to start another long argument about that, just saying that I think he puts too much credence in a one liner buried at the end of a paragraph that just seems to be intended as general guidance.




Except in your "who-dun-its" scenarios outlined above, the DM would simply decide there is a chance of failure and there are meaningful consequences of failure, so rolls would be called for when interrogating key NPCs.  You seem to be intent on trying to prove that "@iserith's way" is so rigid when it is anything but.  Keep setting 'em up, I guess, and we'll keep knocking 'em down.


----------



## iserith (Mar 28, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I agree - one I recall was a magically warded door with an exceptionally high break DC - so high a PC rolled a natural 20 on an Athletics check and still failed to open it. If I had said "Don't roll" then they wouldn't have attempted to open the door or wouldn't have received the information that the door was incredibly hard to break.




You can just describe the door as being special in a way that establishes it will not be broken down with brute force.

Alternatively (or perhaps in addition), you can just rule automatic failure to a brute force attempt to open the door without a roll. The character describes the character trying to break down the door and the DM narrates the result of the adventurer's action as failing to do so. Unless there is some additional meaningful consequence for failure (perhaps it sets off an alarm or otherwise makes noise that alerts a wandering monster), that ability check was unnecessary in my view.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 28, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I agree - one I recall was a magically warded door with an exceptionally high break DC - so high a PC rolled a natural 20 on an Athletics check and still failed to open it. If I had said "Don't roll" then they wouldn't have attempted to open the door or wouldn't have received the information that the door was incredibly hard to break.
> 
> Often though I like to tell players the target DC so they they can tell me "I auto pass" or "I can't make that".
> 
> In any case, different approaches suit different situations, different GM styles, and even different genres. And the 5e guidance is very supportive of a variety of approaches - it seeks to empower the DM, not constrain him or her.




What an odd assertion about a style you don't use!  Nothing anyone has said should have indicated that not rolling means it doesn't happen.  The PC could have made exactly the same roll in my game, and I wouldn't have called for a roll, I'd have narrated the failure with something along the lines of "you smash into the door a few times, but it doesn't even budge a bit."  This both provides the players with the information and moves the game forward exactly the same way, just without rolling dice at all.

Again, if your example of someone else's style seems really, really bad, stop and consider that maybe you have it wrong.  Frex, if you assume not rolling means ignoring the stated action, you're off base.  The loop is 1. players declare actions, 2. DM determines success, failure, or uncertain; if uncertain roll dice 3. narrate outcome of action.  If you look closely, there isn't a 2a, if you don't roll dice, nothing at all happens and skip step 3.  Players always do what they declare though it might or might not succeed, but they always get a resolution.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> What an odd assertion about a style you don't use!  Nothing anyone has said should have indicated that not rolling means it doesn't happen.  The PC could have made exactly the same roll in my game, and I wouldn't have called for a roll, I'd have narrated the failure with something along the lines of "you smash into the door a few times, but it doesn't even budge a bit."




I didn't make any assertion about other people's styles, and I use a variety myself, depending on various factors, like I just said.

With the door, it was not literally unbreakable, a sufficiently high number could have broken it. For me to say "Don't roll" I would have had to first establish what the PC's maximum bonus was. Rather than have that discussion followed by you-bounce-off, for me it worked better to have player roll. It actually made for a dramatic little vignette - "No normal door could have withstood _that_!" Conversely with the high level Barbarians IMC I know what their minimum Athletics checks are (= STR, currently 24 & 30!) - so I will say "That was a DC 25 so you auto-succeed..." and that works well there, too.

IMO the important thing with the 5e system is to be flexible, not doctrinaire, and use the best tools for the job.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2019)

iserith said:


> You can just describe the door as being special in a way that establishes it will not be broken down with brute force.
> 
> Alternatively (or perhaps in addition), you can just rule automatic failure to a brute force attempt to open the door without a roll. The character describes the character trying to break down the door and the DM narrates the result of the adventurer's action as failing to do so. Unless there is some additional meaningful consequence for failure (perhaps it sets off an alarm or otherwise makes noise that alerts a wandering monster), that ability check was unnecessary in my view.




The door appeared normal, but was magically warded. As it happened there was no possibility of the particular PC breaking it successfully (I think the DC was 2 higher than their roll), but the attempt did give them information.

I'll also let PCs roll Perception and Investigate when there is nothing to be found - we do all rolls in the open, the roll itself provides information although there is no success/failure threshold.


----------



## Oofta (Mar 28, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> Except in your "who-dun-its" scenarios outlined above, the DM would simply decide there is a chance of failure and there are meaningful consequences of failure, so rolls would be called for when interrogating key NPCs.  You seem to be intent on trying to prove that "@iserith's way" is so rigid when it is anything but.  Keep setting 'em up, I guess, and we'll keep knocking 'em done.




Oh noes, I am cut to the quick by that rapier wit.  And a picture!  You pulled all the stops out on that one.

All I'm pointing out is that in some cases I allow PCs to roll even though I know the outcome because I don't want to give anything away to the players.  In other cases, it's just a preference.  Just like yours.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 28, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I agree - one I recall was a magically warded door with an exceptionally high break DC - so high a PC rolled a natural 20 on an Athletics check and still failed to open it. If I had said "Don't roll" then they wouldn't have attempted to open the door or wouldn't have received the information that the door was incredibly hard to break.
> 
> Often though I like to tell players the target DC so they they can tell me "I auto pass" or "I can't make that".
> 
> In any case, different approaches suit different situations, different GM styles, and even different genres. And the 5e guidance is very supportive of a variety of approaches - it seeks to empower the DM, not constrain him or her.




Instead of going through the motions of a roll that is doomed to fail even on a 20, you could just cut to the chase by simply narrating:  "as the party member with the best chance of breaking down a door, you give it your top effort but this door seems to be immune to your physical blows.  What do you want to do now?"  If you make them roll, and they roll very low, it could trigger the dreaded "waterfall" of rolls among the entire party where each player is hoping for a very high roll to succeed.   IMO, better to narrate (or, perhaps like you said, tell the player that the DC is beyond reach for that strategy) and let the players move on to some other solutions.


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2019)

(If I've stepped in some kind of long-running feud, I'll let myself out! After all the 5e DMG is very clear we should run it however we like, it's all good, man! )


----------



## S'mon (Mar 28, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> Instead of going through the motions of a roll that is doomed to fail even on a 20, you could just cut to the chase by simply narrating:  "as the party member with the best chance of breaking down a door, you give it your top effort but this door seems to be immune to your physical blows.  What do you want to do now?"  If you make them roll, and they roll very low, it could trigger the dreaded "waterfall" of rolls among the entire party where each player is hoping for a very high roll to succeed.   IMO, better to narrate (or, perhaps like you said, tell the player that the DC is beyond reach for that strategy) and let the players move on to some other solutions.




After some attempt(s) I'll normally tell them the target number. This comes up most often with monster AC. My son is always trying to get me to tell him the monster AC before anyone has attacked it. I usually reveal the DC or AC on the second or third attempt.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 28, 2019)

Oofta said:


> Oh noes, I am cut to the quick by that rapier wit.  And a picture!  You pulled all the stops out on that one.
> 
> All I'm pointing out is that in some cases I allow PCs to roll even though I know the outcome because I don't want to give anything away to the players.  In other cases, it's just a preference.  Just like yours.




Sorry - yeah that was pretty childish of me.  But, seriously, you should not invoke rapiers or [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] is going to descend and start taking names!

I guess what I'm trying to say, as long as I'm being a bit childish, is: stop pooping on [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s preference.  You are mocking that which you don't seem to understand and it doesn't make you look good to many of us.  And you do have good things to say as I've read (and occasionally XP'd) in other threads.  Peace.


----------



## iserith (Mar 28, 2019)

S'mon said:


> The door appeared normal, but was magically warded. As it happened there was no possibility of the particular PC breaking it successfully (I think the DC was 2 higher than their roll), but the attempt did give them information.




Did you decide the door looked like that or was it in a module?

What was the meaningful consequence of failure in that situation? I could see not knowing a PC's upper limits for the check (I know practically nothing about my players' character sheets). But if there isn't an particular time pressure or anything else that would manifest as a consequence, I would not call for a check here.



S'mon said:


> I'll also let PCs roll Perception and Investigate when there is nothing to be found - we do all rolls in the open, the roll itself provides information although there is no success/failure threshold.




What information is provided here that the DM cannot impart him or herself via describing the environment or narrating the result of the adventurers' actions?

Also, as an aside, are you one of these cats who can't stand "metagaming?"


----------



## iserith (Mar 28, 2019)

S'mon said:


> (If I've stepped in some kind of long-running feud, I'll let myself out! After all the 5e DMG is very clear we should run it however we like, it's all good, man! )




Same! I didn't write the rules, I just play by them and occasionally quote them online. If someone has an issue with rules, take it up with the designers!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 28, 2019)

S'mon said:


> I didn't make any assertion about other people's styles, and I use a variety myself, depending on various factors, like I just said.



You did, you said, "If I had said "Don't roll" then they wouldn't have attempted to open the door or wouldn't have received the information that the door was incredibly hard to break."  Given the discussion is on a style that says "don't roll" if the task is impossible, it's hard to read that as not making an assumption about that style.  Context matters, here.  Maybe it was a poor choice of phrasing on your part, I can see that, I've made many such myself, but you most certainly phrased it in a way that is naturally taken as speaking about styles were "don't roll for impossible tasks" is a thing.

That you carried that into a negation of action is even more concerning.  It shows a broad lack of understanding about the principles involved in the style under discussion.



> With the door, it was not literally unbreakable, a sufficiently high number could have broken it. For me to say "Don't roll" I would have had to first establish what the PC's maximum bonus was. Rather than have that discussion followed by you-bounce-off, for me it worked better to have player roll. It actually made for a dramatic little vignette - "No normal door could have withstood _that_!" Conversely with the high level Barbarians IMC I know what their minimum Athletics checks are (= STR, currently 24 & 30!) - so I will say "That was a DC 25 so you auto-succeed..." and that works well there, too.




It's fair that you don't have your player's stats memorized (although a DC 25+ door seems a bit obvious).  However, that's not the point of not asking for a roll if the task is impossible or there is no consequence for failure.  Here, it's pretty obvious there was no consequence for failure because you just provided information that it didn't work.  Granted, that bit of information on this door showed players that it was impossible to bash, but that's not a consequence of the roll, but a consequence of that specific result.  Had the result been less the a natural 20, the consequence would have been the same -- none.  In this case, under my style, I would not ask for a roll, but still provide information to the party.  The mistake often made in criticizing my style by those not familiar with it is that it still runs like yours -- you use rolls to convey information, I just provide the information.  In the case of this door, I would have done as [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] did, and narrate as part of the description of the door that it looks nigh-unbreakable, that serious power outside the party's current ken was needed.  Or, I, alternatively, would have done as I said above -- narrated the automatic failure of the action by providing all of the information you did on a natural 20.  The lack of a roll doesn't mean nothing happens and the players are left with no new information.  This is the assumption that comes from your style, where the roll is used to convey such, and which you assume, then, doesn't happen when no roll is made.  That's not it, though, because the action is still attempted, and whatever outcome of that action obtains -- either auto-success/failure or a die roll -- information is still conveyed in the outcome that gives players necessary information to move forward in the game.

Conversely, I while I don't get the nice vignette of the natural 20 showing that the current task is beyond the strongest in the party (and I'm agreeing that's a fun outcome), I also don't have the frustration of rolling a 19 instead and wondering if it's worth it to keep trying for the 20.  I recall that from my days using that style, and that's one of the reasons I switched -- that result was unsatisfying to me.  If it works for you, awesome, I am legitimately glad this is so.



> IMO the important thing with the 5e system is to be flexible, not doctrinaire, and use the best tools for the job.



I completely agree - doctrinaire styles really suck the wind out of the game.  I'm very glad that neither I nor [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] use such a style, and also glad that you do not as well.  We're all a very happy, non-doctrinaire party of gamers, yeah?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 29, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> What an odd assertion about a style you don't use!  Nothing anyone has said should have indicated that not rolling means it doesn't happen.  The PC could have made exactly the same roll in my game, and I wouldn't have called for a roll, I'd have narrated the failure with something along the lines of "you smash into the door a few times, but it doesn't even budge a bit."  This both provides the players with the information and moves the game forward exactly the same way, just without rolling dice at all.



One major problem with the whole caveat about "meaningful outcomes" is that the DM has no way of knowing which outcomes the player will consider to be meaningful. If the player literally declares, "I keep bashing at the door until it either breaks down or I am reasonably certain that it won't break," then that's one thing. But if the player just says that they want to make an attempt, then you can't know for certain as to why they are making that attempt. And since you can't know whether any given outcome is meaningful or not, you can't skip the resolution without making an unfounded assumption. "Declaration of intent" is not part of the process of play. Players are only supposed to declare their actions.

The whole point of not rolling is that it skips the tedious process of rolling repeatedly until they succeed, but that only follows in those cases where they would actually follow that course of action. If they're going to keep trying until they succeed, then sure, go ahead and narrate their eventual success. If they make one attempt, and then stop to evaluate the outcome of that action before considering a further course of action, then rolling a 4 is meaningfully distinct from rolling a 20; the latter result indicates that no success is possible with this course of action, while the former result indicates that it _might_ be possible.

Honestly, it's the same reason why Skill Challenges didn't work in 4E. A player needs the ability to react to the outcome of an action by changing their goal.


----------



## Oofta (Mar 29, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> Sorry - yeah that was pretty childish of me.  But, seriously, you should not invoke rapiers or [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] is going to descend and start taking names!




No worries; for some reason I don't really understand this is a touchy subject so I'm a bit over-sensitive myself.  



DM Dave1 said:


> I guess what I'm trying to say, as long as I'm being a bit childish, is: stop pooping on [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION]'s preference.  You are mocking that which you don't seem to understand and it doesn't make you look good to many of us.  And you do have good things to say as I've read (and occasionally XP'd) in other threads.  Peace.




That's never been my intent.  It's his preference.  My preference is that if someone says they use an athletics check to open a door I'll let them.  If there's no chance of success if they go to try it again I'll stop them before they roll and tell them they try a few times but it's not going to budge.  Maybe I'll give them a check because they have a carpentry background using intelligence or wisdom with a proficiency bonus to figure out that it's just a fake door.  Same result, ever so slightly different style.  

I get _how_ people follow this way of running their games and _what_ they do but when it comes to _why_ I'm at a bit of a loss.  It's probably just that I keep hearing that "it's the rules".   I think the rules are more of a guideline than hard-and-fast rules on this one.  Some people just like rolling dice or stating intent by phrasing it as a skill check so I let them.  But even if it is the rules, so what?  If people want to know what the rules text says, read the book. Ask for advice and I'll let you know what works for me.

This seems to me to be the same as how people describe how raw fish with plain rice and green-tinted horse radish is the most awesome dish in the world because it's _sushi_.  It's a personal preference and just like I don't really care if you like your fish raw. I'll still take mine cooked and with a side of brown or wild rice.

As far as the OP, I simply don't think there's one best way of doing any of this.  Find a balance you find works for you, try a few different options, experiment.

P.S. I really don't want to argue about this any more.  Different people have different ways of playing, I think we should be able to explain what we do without getting into another never-ending thread.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Mar 29, 2019)

iserith said:


> Sure. In addition, the rules have two tools that the DM can employ:
> 
> 
> Progress combined with a setback (PHB p. 174)
> ...




I thought you were quoting from the DFRPG players book, Your World.  It’s a play style that FATE reinforces.


----------



## 77IM (Mar 29, 2019)

Here's another way to look at this whole issue. During game play, some skills see a LOT more use than others.

I rarely see Animal Handling checks in play. They happen, sure, but not that often. Ditto for Performance, Medicine, maybe Nature. Conversely, ing PERCEPTION is rolled like every 5 minutes. Skills like Athletics and Arcana and Persuasion fall somewhere in the middle. Then there are oddballs like Stealth, which can be tremendously useful for certain characters and seldom used by others.

Obviously, this varies somewhat by table and DMing style. Some DMs put a lot of effort into finding uses for all skills. But I don't think it's a stretch to say that in general the current skills are not really balanced. I'm not saying that this is a problem -- I personally find the skill list "balanced enough" that it's not worth house-ruling.

But,  [MENTION=23718]twofalls[/MENTION], if you are going to expand the skill list in some way, this is something you should keep in mind. Splitting up a skill like Acrobatics into Climbing, Swimming, Running and Jumping sounds good, but now each of those skills is much less attractive than the consolidated Athletics. And even though I rag on Perception as overpowered, I agree with  [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] that you shouldn't split it up, because it becomes too confusing which one to use. (The fact that it is rolled frequently makes simplicity really important.)

One potential solution here is to have skills cost different amount of "points." So maybe you have Nature proficiency cost 1 point, Climbing costs 2 points, Acrobatics costs 4 points, and Perception costs 8 points, or something like that. Give everybody 4 points per skill they used to have -- so 8 points for backgrounds, 8 points for most classes but 12 for bards/rangers and 16 for rogues, 8 bonus points for half-elves, etc. This way players who pick a really great skill like Perception have to pay for it, while the low cost would allow players to pick up tons of "flavorful" but minor skills like Nature, Animal Handling, Planar Lore, Riding, Ancient History, Modern History, etc. A related idea is to have skills and fractional skills. So maybe you can buy Athletics for 6 points, or you can buy Athletics/Climbing for 2 points, Athletics/Swimming for 2 points, Athletics/Jumping for 1 point, and Athletics/Running for 1 point. If you want to get really fancy, you could do something like GURPS's "skill defaults," and say that if you are proficient in Athletics/Climbing, you can add _half_ your proficiency bonus to Athletics/Jumping or Athletics/Running. Older editions of Shadowrun used to have a really cool "skill defaults" chart that was like a flowchart and resembled an integrated circuit, which I always thought was a really nice way to put a touch of cyberpunk aesthetic right into the rules system.

I'm just brainstorming here. My point is that the skills aren't balanced right, and you don't want to exacerbate that problem by introducing a ton of minor skills that are more-unique but less-powerful.


----------



## Oofta (Mar 29, 2019)

77IM said:


> Here's another way to look at this whole issue. During game play, some skills see a LOT more use than others.




I agree with your post and wanted to point out that this is one of the reasons I print out a list of skills and have them handy.  I make a conscious effort to make some of the lesser-used skills (and tool proficiencies) useful now and them.    It's incredibly easy to get into a rut, so I look for excuses to use survival or medicine.  I want to reward people for their investment and try to give everyone a chance to shine.

So part of that is trying to think of ways for myself as a DM and for my players to think of how to use skills in ways we don't usually consider.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 29, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> One major problem with the whole caveat about "meaningful outcomes" is that the DM has no way of knowing which outcomes the player will consider to be meaningful. If the player literally declares, "I keep bashing at the door until it either breaks down or I am reasonably certain that it won't break," then that's one thing. But if the player just says that they want to make an attempt, then you can't know for certain as to why they are making that attempt. And since you can't know whether any given outcome is meaningful or not, you can't skip the resolution without making an unfounded assumption. "Declaration of intent" is not part of the process of play. Players are only supposed to declare their actions.
> 
> The whole point of not rolling is that it skips the tedious process of rolling repeatedly until they succeed, but that only follows in those cases where they would actually follow that course of action. If they're going to keep trying until they succeed, then sure, go ahead and narrate their eventual success. If they make one attempt, and then stop to evaluate the outcome of that action before considering a further course of action, then rolling a 4 is meaningfully distinct from rolling a 20; the latter result indicates that no success is possible with this course of action, while the former result indicates that it _might_ be possible.
> 
> Honestly, it's the same reason why Skill Challenges didn't work in 4E. A player needs the ability to react to the outcome of an action by changing their goal.




Most certainly I can.  I ask both for a goal -- what the player wants the character to accomplish -- and an approach -- how the player wants the character to accomplish the goal.  Only then can I ascertain what the challenge is for the action.  If that challenge is uncertain, I can use the approach to select which ability check to call for.  I keep the player goal in mind for outcomes and make sure I don't accidentally thwart the goal on a success.  Not knowing the overall goal of the player can lead to succeeding at the roll but still failing to accomplish the player's goal, which is frustrating.

In other word, I'll take your first declaration of action above because it has a goal and approach -- I hit the door until it breaks.  I won't take the second -- I hit the door -- because I don't have a goal to pair it with.  I'll ask, "Cool, what's your plan for that -- do you want to break the door down?"  After a bit, the players add this automatically.  I rarely have to prompt for a goal and approach anymore.

Here's the thing -- for my style to work the players MUST trust that the GM is not playing to be a dick.  It that semi-adversarial relationship that has players announcing actions without stating the goals -- hoping to sneak one by the GM.  But, I've established that if I know the goal, I'll make sure the player gets a fair shake at it and will not act in a way to thwart that goal just because.  This way, the players are open about what they want to do and how, and I get to make sure that the fairest resolution possible is provided.  Other methods can do this as well -- I'm not at all suggesting mine is the only way to accomplish this -- but if you're going to use mine, then this is essential to it's success.  If the players do not trust the GM to acknowledge and allow pursuit of their goals, it will run into problems -- pretty bad ones, actually.  My method is not a panacea for all tables, by any stretch, and it's isn't a "if you do this, you'll have a great game!"either.  It takes work, just like any other method.

I've modified a page from other games as a maxim.  If the players are succeeding, then they're succeeding -- I don't get in the way or lessen a success, and I certainly don't thwart one.  This take a good deal of flexibility in outcome, which is hard to do in 5e (or most D&D) because the nature of the game makes winging it, especially for combat challenges, more difficult that in other games that are built around this concept.  I have enough experience with 5e that I can do it pretty successfully, but it's not easy (I still mess it up, less often as time goes on, but more often than I'd prefer).  The flip side of this is that when players fail, I'll gleefully inflict harm to their goals, making things harder or worse or just plain ugly.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 29, 2019)

Oofta said:


> No worries; for some reason I don't really understand this is a touchy subject so I'm a bit over-sensitive myself.
> 
> 
> 
> That's never been my intent.  It's his preference.  My preference is that if someone says they use an athletics check to open a door I'll let them.  If there's no chance of success if they go to try it again I'll stop them before they roll and tell them they try a few times but it's not going to budge.  Maybe I'll give them a check because they have a carpentry background using intelligence or wisdom with a proficiency bonus to figure out that it's just a fake door.  Same result, ever so slightly different style.



As I tried to explain to you yesterday, in the other thread, the result is very different on a failure.  Failed rolls have consequences, so asking for a roll that then fails means a consequence for failure is applied.  Sure, success states look similar, but the failure states for each vary greatly, so, no, it's not the same.



> I get _how_ people follow this way of running their games and _what_ they do but when it comes to _why_ I'm at a bit of a loss.  It's probably just that I keep hearing that "it's the rules".   I think the rules are more of a guideline than hard-and-fast rules on this one.  Some people just like rolling dice or stating intent by phrasing it as a skill check so I let them.  But even if it is the rules, so what?  If people want to know what the rules text says, read the book. Ask for advice and I'll let you know what works for me.



Well, again, I explained it quite a few times in the other thread.  You, like [MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] above, seem to be judging how our style works from how your play.  So, for you, you'd introduce the unbreakable door and then have players roll dice to try to break it to find out it's unbreakable.  I don't do that at all.  I'm going to straight up tell them it looks unbreakable, and, if they try, I'll narrate a failure outright with additional info like 'it doesn't even budge.'  But, here's the thing, if I introduce an unbreakable door, finding out it's unbreakable is _not the point of the challenge_.  It'll be part of some other challenge where it's being unbreakable is an obstacle to be overcome through other means.  The fact that dice aren't rolled to figure out the door is unbreakable is totally unimportant to my style, because the dice will be rolled on other actions that do matter to the challenge I present.  Playing in my style doesn't mean it looks just like your play only with no rolls sometimes you'd ask for rolls, it means we've prioritized the play in a slightly different way and are focusing on those situations where the dice will result in good things for the players or bad things for the players, never things that are 'eh, okay'.  There's nothing wrong with using the dice more, or letting players declare actions by picking the mechanics for their resolution -- both are presented also in the DMG -- but you really need to step outside of your comfortable play assumptions and try to look at a different style as an _actually different style_, not just your play with this one difference.

I strongly suggest playing in a Blades in the Dark game, or a Apocalypse World game, or a Dungeon World game.  These are accessible because they maintain a number of similarities to D&D (DW, especially), but use a very different style of play.  You might get it a bit better by being shaken out of the long-term play you've always used.  I know it helped me get it, which is honestly a fairly recent thing -- in the last 3 years or so.



> This seems to me to be the same as how people describe how raw fish with plain rice and green-tinted horse radish is the most awesome dish in the world because it's _sushi_.  It's a personal preference and just like I don't really care if you like your fish raw. I'll still take mine cooked and with a side of brown or wild rice.



Perfectly valid!  But, what's happening is that you're evaluating the sushi by how well cooked it is.  You can prefer cooked fish all you want -- it's delicious! -- but you can't evaluate sushi by how well cooked it is.



> As far as the OP, I simply don't think there's one best way of doing any of this.  Find a balance you find works for you, try a few different options, experiment.



A sentiment I heartily agree with.  



> P.S. I really don't want to argue about this any more.  Different people have different ways of playing, I think we should be able to explain what we do without getting into another never-ending thread.



As I said in the other thread, I'd be happy to stop discussing this, just please stop misrepresenting my playstyle first. Then we can get back to happy, happy gaming, each to our own style.


----------



## Rya.Reisender (Mar 29, 2019)

If the core issue is "players have no idea what to do with their skills if they are not specific", then I wouldn't change the rules at all and instead simply give them a handout that lists each official D&D 5e skill with a list of things you can do with that skill.

On top of that, I'd check each tool proficiency the PCs have and then print the extract on the proficiency from Xanathar's Guide To Everything and give it to the corresponding player as an inspiration on additional things he can do.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> Well, for your example, the result of a failed roll is the pc doesn’t know for sure.  Let the paranoia tear your players apart.  That’s a meaningful consequence.
> 
> I semi agree with isereth.  If a difficult lock needs picking and there are no time constraints, why bother rolling?  There’s no meaningful consequence.  I wouldn’t have them roll over and over until they succeeded. OTOH,  If they have 3 rounds to succeed before the ogre guard comes back, failure will have a consequence.
> 
> ...



" If a difficult lock needs picking and there are no time constraints, why bother rolling? "

See, I can think of a lot of reasons, but as soon as I do it hits the conclusion layered into the rest of your post about " pointless" rolling or boring results.

It's kind of a catch 22 definitional thing - whether or not a roll is pointless is determined by the GM, so a GM deciding "I wont call for a roll because it is pointless" is circular logic at best. If I am not gonna call for a roll "why call it a "difficult" lock?

But just a few for instances-

That difficult lock can become jammed by the failed picking attempts (setback) requiring a different approach or tool that you have to go get.

People, real people, dont always just keep trying for a long time cuz thry *know* sooner or later they will succeed. This is the flaw in the only roll if they csa succeed, calling for a roll says *you can roll through this*. The process tells them something about the scene.

If they knew a roll would be required regardless, then that likely means after a bit of work that keeps failing they likely switch to Plan B(oot) or Plan C(limb up the outer wall) or Plan K(nock Spell) etc.

To me, "difficult" lock has to be shown to be just that, and an auto-success rarely gets that across. The marginal case eould be if an early lock system is presented so without time constraints as foreshadowing. Then, the party has long rests available *and* Intel to conclude "more like these ahead and we will be under fire" so maybe the plan and prepare quick door-beater plans (knock spells, Bulled Up Fighters to force doors, etc) for the future. But that's just as effective foreshadowed if not more with rolls and setbacks. 

But for me, if I am not gonna make it a roll, it's gonna be an easy auro-success or it's not gonna be a task/challenge. 

"This door is broken (reasons), so you can slide it forward but you see the lock that was there and it looks like a doozey."


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

77IM said:


> Here's another way to look at this whole issue. During game play, some skills see a LOT more use than others.
> 
> I rarely see Animal Handling checks in play. They happen, sure, but not that often. Ditto for Performance, Medicine, maybe Nature. Conversely, ing PERCEPTION is rolled like every 5 minutes. Skills like Athletics and Arcana and Persuasion fall somewhere in the middle. Then there are oddballs like Stealth, which can be tremendously useful for certain characters and seldom used by others.
> 
> ...



First, I agree with your notion, that the addition of more skills is not the right way to address the issue you describe. 
I also agree that skills will not be equally frequent.

But...
I'm just brainstorming here. My point is that the skills aren't balanced right, and you don't want to exacerbate that problem by introducing a ton of minor skills that are more-unique but less-powerful."

Let me put forth my own perspective - nothing is balanced right. Unless two things are identical, they are not balanced right.

The key to balance is that it comes more from the challenge than from the aptitude or definition. The most powerful "element" or character trait in the first session of my campaign, the thing that really mattered at the end... was speaking draconian and negotiating. 

The notion that any elements will be balanced as a matter of course or mechanics falls down when you realize that from one campaign or arc to the next the challenges may be very different  

If Animal checks are rare, it's because those kinds of encounters or challenges are not being seen. 

But also, frequency if rolls is only part of the balance. Sure, perception is called for a lot, but in my experience a lot of those are for initial info breakdowns that turn out to be middling important at best. How many times is a trait very important? How many times does it become key? That's really what a player is looking for imx when they take one trait over another. Even if it's to avoid not having it.

Rambling I guess but, to me it boils down to this - skills are balanced or not in play by the GM choices and the players choices and no amount of point buy scaling or details in function matters more than that. 

So, to me, a player choosing a proficiency is their way of telling me "I want this to matter." After that it's on me (mostly) but also them to make it matter enough in play that they see it as having been worth taking.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 29, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> I've modified a page from other games as a maxim. If the players are succeeding, then they're succeeding -- I don't get in the way or lessen a success, and I certainly don't thwart one. This take a good deal of flexibility in outcome, which is hard to do in 5e (or most D&D) because the nature of the game makes winging it, especially for combat challenges, more difficult that in other games that are built around this concept. I have enough experience with 5e that I can do it pretty successfully, but it's not easy (I still mess it up, less often as time goes on, but more often than I'd prefer). The flip side of this is that when players fail, I'll gleefully inflict harm to their goals, making things harder or worse or just plain ugly.



Maybe it works at your table, due to your own social contract, but it is very clearly against the process of play, which states that players declare their actions rather than their goals. 

There's no way I could possibly play the way you run it, for the exact reason I don't play any of those other games which are designed to facilitate that sort of thing. It violates causality too much, which breaks immersion for me, and gives me a headache. It's great if you can run your game in such a way that everyone has fun, but you're fighting against the tide.


----------



## Sadras (Mar 29, 2019)

twofalls said:


> That said, crunch is still necessary, we are playing a game after all, and my players are all telling me what great fun they are having, but are often stuck without ideas on how to handle difficult situations (part of it is that there is no natural leader right now in the player mix). I was hoping that a more robust skill system would encourage new ideas and help guide them a bit with regards to understanding what their characters can do.




I'm not convinced that expanding the skill system would help players who are _often stuck without ideas_. I believe writing down Balancing, Climbing, Jump, Might, Running, Swimming, Tumbling...etc on a character sheet won't fix the issue. 

IMO, expanding the skill system will serve to create greater character differentiation between two fighters of the same level with the same stat score proficient in say Athletics. One might be a better swimmer the other a better long distance runner. Or two clerics both proficient in Religion, one might be a better theologian, the other might be specialised in ecclesiology. If you're saying these additional skill words inspire creativity then having them listed on a separate page and not on the character sheet will work just as well without the added homebrewing hassle.


----------



## Sadras (Mar 29, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Not knowing the overall goal of the player can lead to succeeding at the roll but still failing to accomplish the player's goal, which is frustrating.




How does that work, can you please provide an example?


----------



## Harzel (Mar 29, 2019)

Rya.Reisender said:


> If the core issue is "players have no idea what to do with their skills if they are not specific", then I wouldn't change the rules at all and instead simply give them a handout that lists each official D&D 5e skill with a list of things you can do with that skill.




This.  And perhaps to do that in a way that leverages / integrates with how the OP has been thinking about the problem: go ahead and create and/or steal a more detailed list of skills.  Then just figure out which 5e skill subsumes each one and use that (along with abilities/skills info from the PHB) to construct the list that @_*Rya.Reisender*_ suggests.  Seems like that would produce a set of ideas for the players that is as specific and suggestive as an expanded skill list would be without the trouble of having to muck about with rules changes.

I have another point to make, but I want to preface it by saying I intend no disrespect to @_*twofalls*_ or your players - please don't take this comment in a way that is as extreme or dismissive as it may at first sound. Anyway, here's the thing: 5e skills are not meant as buttons to be pushed.  The basic outlook for the player should be that the PC "can attempt anything".  In the main, ideas for PC actions should arise from their circumstances, not from a preexisting list of things they can do.*  Of course, it is reasonable that that should be tempered by knowing what each PC is good at, but in 5e that description by design comprises very general categories, not specific actions.  The advantage of this is adaptability to varying circumstances.  (The PHB section Chapter 7 Using Ability Scores >> Skills >> Variant: Skills with Different Abilities suggests one facet of this flexibility.)

Now, really, I expect that you understand this pretty well already and so it is possible that I am just a noisy intrusion.  But several of your comments indicate, to me at least, that your players are leaning, perhaps oh so slightly, in the direction of wanting to have buttons to push.  So I guess the suggestion is that, in addition to supplying the above-mentioned list, focus the players back on immersing themselves in the situation you describe, and understanding that (magic aside) they can attempt anything that would be physically possible (for a hero!) in that situation.  If they want to know whether their abilities or skills will give them a leg up (so to speak) on a particular action, IMO there's nothing wrong with having that meta-discussion (as long as it doesn't turn into a lengthy debate).

* This is more or less a restatement of what other posters have already said; I hope different words will be additionally useful.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 29, 2019)

77IM said:


> I'm just brainstorming here. My point is that the skills aren't balanced right, and you don't want to exacerbate that problem by introducing a ton of minor skills that are more-unique but less-powerful.




Thank you. I understood this, but it was still well worth pointing out. I was actually convinced early on by 5ekyu's short essay on the topic of skills, and have decided to do this. I am uncoupling all skills from both stats and class/backgrounds and simply allowing the PC's to gain slots which they will freely choose their skills (most characters will thus have 4). Then I will be tying in game skill use to backgrounds. If the PC can make a logical case why their background will allow them to skillfully preform an action I will allow it dependent on the circumstances. The four extra skills represent things the PC's have picked up that are atypical or complimentary of their backgrounds, thus hopefully preventing cookie cutter similarities (ie. all farmers are not the same, all nobles are not the same, etc).

The problem my group is having with getting stuck on what to do has a lot to do with the makeup of the party. Everyone is bright, that isn't the problem, however they overthink absolutely everything to the point of paralysis. There are a great deal of politics and NP interaction in the game, and combats tend to be very dangerous most of the time. Everyone is very attached to their PCs (because I have designed things to encourage this attachment) and no one wants to die. Right now the two party leaders are on vicarages (I'm a seminarian and most of the rpg group are somehow associated with the seminary) and will be returning this Summer, however in the interim the party has suffered from indecision and a great amount of doing very little. 

I don't know if changing the skill system will really help here, but I was considering it. Now however, I think I will run with the above idea, but not until the new campaign starts when the two leaders are back from their assignments. The players are having fun, or so they insist, and that is really the important thing. 

This thread took on a life of its own, but everyone has been congenial which I very much appreciate. I'm so used to social media where the lowest common denominator is something evolved just beyond pond scum that reading ten pages on a forum of polite conversation is a breath of fresh air.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 29, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> Maybe it works at your table, due to your own social contract, but it is very clearly against the process of play, which states that players declare their actions rather than their goals.




With all due respect, you are misunderstanding the plastyle.  The statement of goals is a perfectly natural extension of declaring actions and simply allows the players to have greater agency over their PCs - with the added benefit of lessening the workload of the DM and perhaps even allowing a scene to go in a direction the DM never imagined.  It's that last one which is very enjoyable to me.



Sadras said:


> How does that work, can you please provide an example?




I'm sure @_*Ovinomancer*_ can provide more, but here are a couple just off the cuff:

Example 1 - climbing the tower with a stated goal
DM:  "You reach the top of the hill leaving the forest below you.  Before you is a 40' grey tower made of large, rough blocks of stone.  The tower appears to have no door or windows.  What do you do?"
Player 1:  "I'd like to climb the tower using the blocks as hand/foot holds.  But before getting to the top, I'd like to stop and get a good 
look around to let the others what I see."
DM:  "Roll a Strength (Athletics) check, DC 15 - the blocks are old and a bit crumbly"

The player clearly states an action (climb the tower) and a goal (to get a better view of the surroundings before reaching the top).  Without the goal statement, the DM has to make a big assumption that since the PC wanted to climb the tower that they will get to the top with a successful roll and step into a group of quietly waiting orcs.... which is in no way what the player intended.  And then you have an awkward phase of "that's not what I wanted to do" and the scene is, well, ruined.  By stating a goal, the DM is now prompted to allow the perched climber a better chance to hear the whispers coming from above and give them a chance to act on that knowledge.  If the player was explicit that they wanted to climb the tower and stop short of the top, but didn't explain their goal, then the DM has to prompt them again:  "ok, you are almost near the top, now what?" - when that would have been obvious if they had just stated the goal in the first place.  That last point is a subtle difference, but one that, IMO, makes the action flow more naturally with a much DM prompting.

Example 2 - knocking a creature out without a stated goal
Now in combat, declaring a goal is certainly not always necessary but there is at least one very important exception.  
Player 1: "I swing my axe at the orc - I know a 17 hits - 8 damage!"
DM: "You cleave the orcs skull and it falls to the ground"
Player 1: "But my PC just wanted to knock it out!"
Because the goal was not stated, we now pause the game to have an awkward phase of rolling back the action when, with a simple stated goal, we can have the narrative just flow naturally.

Gotta run or else would add some more... but do those make sense @_*Sadras*_?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 29, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> Maybe it works at your table, due to your own social contract, but it is very clearly against the process of play, which states that players declare their actions rather than their goals.
> 
> There's no way I could possibly play the way you run it, for the exact reason I don't play any of those other games which are designed to facilitate that sort of thing. It violates causality too much, which breaks immersion for me, and gives me a headache. It's great if you can run your game in such a way that everyone has fun, but you're fighting against the tide.



It 1) doesn't ever violate causality, but that a different duscussion* and 2) I borrow part of the concept, not the mechanics.  5e is very much a resolution at the end system, which means that you establish the fiction up to resolving the action and resolution possibilities are pinned to that fiction.  I definitely use the 5e resolution mechanic, but am explicit as to what's at stake.  My system mastery lets me be much more flexible in establishing these stakes on the fly rather than prepping them all ahead of time.  This let's me be more reactive to the play at the table rather than what's in my prep.  It isn't using the resolution in the middle* mechanics you're referencing -- 5e just does not support this play and will fight you if you use it.

An example of this play was a recent session.  One character was trying to improve relations with a faction he had a poor reputation with.  After setting the scene, the character offered his services as a means to improve relations, but failed the CHA check called for.  I perverted his goal by having the faction representative assign a very hard test challenge of bringing a notorious murderer to justice and saying "don't show your face again without him."  I made up the murderer right there because I had no idea at the beginning of the session that the player was going to do this or what that interaction would look like.  But, the player presented a plausible course of action for the faction with a clear goal (improve my standing) and a clear approach (offer my services). I determined this was a CHA challenge and set the DC as hard  due to previous history modified to moderate (DC 15) for a good approach (the PC skillset was valuable to the faction).  At stake was the player goal of improved relations.  Instead of closing that door on the failure, I elected to make it harder by setting up a hard challenge.

That challenge, as an aside, led to a TPK because the PCs decided to split up an charge into multiple different buildings, encounting all of the medium to hard difficulty challenge parts of the murder's gang (thrown together in a few moments using stock NPCs) at the same time and independently. And that was with good intel earned by successful checks investigating. 

I have a house rule I'm trying out in this game that PCs don't die unless the player says so, but I get to be mean about it.  No one chose to die, so I got to be mean.  Since this is the first use in the campaign so far, I stuck to undercutting backstories with unwelcome truths and rolling back previous successes reputationally.  Oh, and stealing gear.  So much gear.  

*A resolution in the middle system, like, say, Dungeon World, starts with a scene framing a challenge and then goes to player action declarations.  The actions are resolved without establishing the precuse fiction of the action, and the result is then used to establish both the fiction of the action and the result.  For instance, Dungeon World has an action called Spout Lore.  If a player asks what their character knows about something in game, the GM either tells them or can ask for a Spout Lore.  The check determines if the action succeeds, partially succeeds, or fails.  On any success, the GM is now required to tell the player something interesting about what they asked about.  This is important because whatever was asked about must now be important on a success.  The GM is obligated to make this thing have importance and tell the player true things about it.  On a failure, though, the GM can now make a move against the player, either introducing a new threat that must be addressed or paying off a threat that impacts the PC. Possible examples are being cursed by the runes you're trying to Spout Lore on, or a wandering monster, or even you do know what the runes say but it's really bad and not at all what you hoped. 

Clearly this us very different from D&D in play and in concept.  Every action makes the entire progression of the game fluid.  These games react very poorly to preplotting or even drawing out maps before play.  Not everyone's cuppa, and that's fine.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 29, 2019)

Sadras said:


> How does that work, can you please provide an example?



Sure!  Let's say that there's a wall a PC wishes to climb.  The player's idea is that he wants to sneakily climb the wall in case there's a guard, but the player only addresses the immediate challenge and asks for a check to climb the wall.  The GM gets the roll, and narrates a successful climb, but then tells the player that they are spotted at the top by a guard because they weren't being stealthy.  Argument, naturally, occurs.

A version of this happened to me, as GM, so it's not outlandish.  And, yes, there are absolutely many ways this could have happened differently and avoided the situation.  That's really neither here nor there, because I can absolutely say that had I ascertained the goal, it would not have happened.  That other possibilities for avoidance exist doesn't undercut my method for making sure it doesn't happen again.

Also, on a failure, I now have more options than just narrating a problem.with climbing.  That's still on the table, but I can now thwart the goal as well by doing what I did before, only this time as a failure mode.


----------



## Oofta (Mar 29, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Perfectly valid!  But, what's happening is that you're evaluating the sushi by how well cooked it is.  You can prefer cooked fish all you want -- it's delicious! -- but you can't evaluate sushi by how well cooked it is.




What makes you think I haven't tried sushi?  I have. Multiple times.  Each time, convinced by someone that I just haven't had _good_ sushi.  Guess what?  It's still raw fish.  White rice is still bland.  The "wassabi" you get here is still just horse radish with food coloring added.

Along the same lines as I've tried to explain I understand what you do, I just don't run my games that way.  I find the way I run them better suited to my style.  

What do I do differently? I encourage people to engage with the scene and not roll dice first but if they grab a die and say "I try to break down the door with an athletics check and get a 23" I'm okay with that even if they have no chance.  In a lot of cases it just saves some time.  While I make suggestions of what skill might be useful, and sometimes call for a specific skill check, the players know their characters better than I do.  If they can suggest a way to use animal handling to determine what happened in a scene because they know how the animals would have responded in that situation, fantastic.  If they say "I think they're lying and make an insight check" that's perfectly okay.  They've read the book and know how skill contests work, I don't see any point in stopping them.

As far as misrepresenting, I try to simply give my preferences.  However multiple people did state over on the other thread that if an NPC was telling the truth the DM should not call for an insight check because there's no attempt at deception.  That's simply not how I run my game.  People can attempt anything unless it should be obviously impossible to the player.  Which is what you keep seeming to misunderstand (or at least acknowledge), by whose perspective is the attempt not possible?  If the player knows its impossible there's no reason to roll.  Until they know its impossible (something I usually hand-wave after the first roll) rolling the die is just representing the PC making an effort, no matter how futile.  People do things all the time that will never succeed, but they keep on trying. 

I just don't see it as a big deal.  I assume we both want the same ultimate goal of player being engaged and empowered, using a variety of skills, not having players just throw dice at problems. You have your preference, I have mine.


----------



## Sadras (Mar 29, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Sure!  Let's say that there's a wall a PC wishes to climb.  The player's idea is that he wants to sneakily climb the wall in case there's a guard, but the player only addresses the immediate challenge and asks for a check to climb the wall.  The GM gets the roll, and narrates a successful climb, but then tells the player that they are spotted at the top by a guard because they weren't being stealthy.  Argument, naturally, occurs.
> 
> A version of this happened to me, as GM, so it's not outlandish.  And, yes, there are absolutely many ways this could have happened differently and avoided the situation.  That's really neither here nor there, because I can absolutely say that had I ascertained the goal, it would not have happened.  That other possibilities for avoidance exist doesn't undercut my method for making sure it doesn't happen again.
> 
> Also, on a failure, I now have more options than just narrating a problem.with climbing.  That's still on the table, but I can now thwart the goal as well by doing what I did before, only this time as a failure mode.




Thanks (and to @_*DM Dave1*_). I guess my DMing playstyle in this regard matches very closely to your own and others here, in that I generally instinctively ask for further details about what the character wishes to do. I just have never thought about analysing/theory-crafting the actual how and why of an action declaration like has been done in these two threads (this and the Insight one).

I will definitely be more mindful of this going forward and I think it can only but improve my table's play experience.


----------



## Oofta (Mar 29, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Sure!  Let's say that there's a wall a PC wishes to climb.  The player's idea is that he wants to sneakily climb the wall in case there's a guard, but the player only addresses the immediate challenge and asks for a check to climb the wall.  The GM gets the roll, and narrates a successful climb, but then tells the player that they are spotted at the top by a guard because they weren't being stealthy.  Argument, naturally, occurs.
> 
> A version of this happened to me, as GM, so it's not outlandish.  And, yes, there are absolutely many ways this could have happened differently and avoided the situation.  That's really neither here nor there, because I can absolutely say that had I ascertained the goal, it would not have happened.  That other possibilities for avoidance exist doesn't undercut my method for making sure it doesn't happen again.
> 
> Also, on a failure, I now have more options than just narrating a problem.with climbing.  That's still on the table, but I can now thwart the goal as well by doing what I did before, only this time as a failure mode.




Did the PC know the guard was there?  If yes then I would have gently reminded the player about the guard or perhaps asked for a wisdom check.  I may have asked for clarification on their approach if it was obvious they had just temporarily forgotten about the guard and didn't mention how they were avoiding them. I assume the PCs are not idiots.  

If the PC didn't know about the guard then they should have been caught, or perhaps there would have been a chance to hear the guard overhead when they were halfway up the wall.

I don't see how any of that is affected by a stylistic preference for declaring actions.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Mar 29, 2019)

twofalls said:


> Thank you. I understood this, but it was still well worth pointing out. I was actually convinced early on by 5ekyu's short essay on the topic of skills, and have decided to do this. I am uncoupling all skills from both stats and class/backgrounds and simply allowing the PC's to gain slots which they will freely choose their skills (most characters will thus have 4). Then I will be tying in game skill use to backgrounds. If the PC can make a logical case why their background will allow them to skillfully preform an action I will allow it dependent on the circumstances. The four extra skills represent things the PC's have picked up that are atypical or complimentary of their backgrounds, thus hopefully preventing cookie cutter similarities (ie. all farmers are not the same, all nobles are not the same, etc).
> 
> The problem my group is having with getting stuck on what to do has a lot to do with the makeup of the party. Everyone is bright, that isn't the problem, however they overthink absolutely everything to the point of paralysis. There are a great deal of politics and NP interaction in the game, and combats tend to be very dangerous most of the time. Everyone is very attached to their PCs (because I have designed things to encourage this attachment) and no one wants to die. Right now the two party leaders are on vicarages (I'm a seminarian and most of the rpg group are somehow associated with the seminary) and will be returning this Summer, however in the interim the party has suffered from indecision and a great amount of doing very little.
> 
> ...



To be respectfully critical, I don't think changing skills is going to fix your issue.  In the short term, it may even exacerbate it by adding more confusion about how things work. Don't get me wrong, here, I actually love your solution and how you codified it.  I've long used backgrounds as a stealth skill system behind the listed ones, but i very much like your expression of it!

But, I do not think that this is your problem.  Quite blunty, your issue appears to be one of communication and framing. And, it's common, but not altogether easy to fix.  The issue is that you are not providing enough information so that the players can tell what's at stake and what's possible.  There's a huge information disparity in D&D and it's sometimes hard to see from the GM side.  You know all the important details, but the players don't.  What's obvious to you isn't to them, and it's hard to "forget" things and put yourself in their shoes to see it.  I heartily recommend erring on the side of oversharing information.  Simplify situations to clear truths that can be related to the players easily and gives them good working knowledge of the various situations.  Make things that are uncertain obviously so, so that the players can engage in resolving that uncertainty.  Make stakes clear.  This will feel like you're giving away the game, but you're not -- I've learned players will reliably and entertainingly screw up by the numbers even if you hand them your notes.  By making things clear and identifying the crux points, you give the players the information the need to address the plot effectively.  Remember, they can only know the gameworld through you, so keep that channel wide open.

Secondly, framing can be an issue.  By framing, I mean the scene you set.  If you set the scene as "you're in the big city, what do you do," this can be too open and you'll get indecision if the players don't already have a clear agenda.  If they don't, aimless wandering and 20 questions show up as the players look for the game.  In these cases, it's useful to elide stuff and go straight to a scene framing where the characters have to make a choice -- maybe they witmess a kidnapping that will pull them into a court intrigue and how they handle it will determine which faction they start aligned with.  Don't be afraid to use "ninjas attack!"* if the game is bogging down and have a "ninja" drop some piece of plot to kick things into moving.

*"Ninjas attack!" doesn't have to be ninjas or attacking, but is a plot tool to put a relevant piece of plot in front of players in an unmistakable way.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> With all due respect, you are misunderstanding the plastyle.  The statement of goals is a perfectly natural extension of declaring actions and simply allows the players to have greater agency over their PCs - with the added benefit of lessening the workload of the DM and perhaps even allowing a scene to go in a direction the DM never imagined.  It's that last one which is very enjoyable to me.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"But before getting to the top, I'd like to stop and get a good "

Sorry but to me that isnt a goal, its not why you are climbing or what you are trying to achieve. Its telling the GM how far you will go.

As GM, if there is a corridor heading down to a T intersection and someone says "i walk down the corridor", do you just assume they head all the way out into the T without any further info or even asking how far? 

I gotta say, this example seems to drive much more towards the depiction of this as a gotcha style than the protestations against it lead on to.

As for, the KO, have to check my 5e rulebook, but the KO blow vs killing blow is a clearly defined rule with clearly defined when its announced iirc. The attack,makes the choice when the creature drops to zero, doesnt have to declare it beforehand. Of course a gm can run otherwise and make his players say with every single swing whether they are trying to kill it or ko but well... Thats not a style i would see as beneficial to our games and really wont go near.


But in fact if it was a 5e game, the awkward moment was the GM ****skipping**** the stage where the player gets to choose the KO or kill decision when the creature hits zero. 

Not to sound CR but you skipped the "how do you want to do this?" step 5e actually has when your melee attacks reduce monsters to zero.


----------



## GMMichael (Mar 29, 2019)

twofalls said:


> If the PC can make a logical case why their background will allow them to skillfully preform an action I will allow it dependent on the circumstances. . . however they overthink absolutely everything to the point of paralysis. There are a great deal of politics and NP interaction in the game, and combats tend to be very dangerous most of the time. Everyone is very attached to their PCs (because I have designed things to encourage this attachment) and no one wants to die.



Allow me to open up my D&D Emergency Kit...paralysis can be remedied with a few band-aids:

Forget about succeed/fail.  If your PCs think in these terms, they'll overthink anything (roll) that could result in a Fail.  Add some gray area in between. 
Remove death as a possibility.  Ever heard of a "fate worse than death?"  This could help PCs spring into combat, if that's what you're wanting them to do. 
If your PCs are stuck on "I can't do it if it's not in the skill list," give them this list, and a LOT more skill proficiencies. 
Every time, literally, that a PC does something cool or interesting, say "you just gained inspiration."  Maybe they'll use it more often, and worry less about bad rolls. 
Don't think in terms of "should I allow it?"  Instead, think "what would the outcome be?"


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Mar 29, 2019)

twofalls said:


> Thank you. I understood this, but it was still well worth pointing out. I was actually convinced early on by 5ekyu's short essay on the topic of skills, and have decided to do this. I am uncoupling all skills from both stats and class/backgrounds and simply allowing the PC's to gain slots which they will freely choose their skills (most characters will thus have 4). Then I will be tying in game skill use to backgrounds. If the PC can make a logical case why their background will allow them to skillfully preform an action I will allow it dependent on the circumstances. The four extra skills represent things the PC's have picked up that are atypical or complimentary of their backgrounds, thus hopefully preventing cookie cutter similarities (ie. all farmers are not the same, all nobles are not the same, etc).
> 
> The problem my group is having with getting stuck on what to do has a lot to do with the makeup of the party. Everyone is bright, that isn't the problem, however they overthink absolutely everything to the point of paralysis. There are a great deal of politics and NP interaction in the game, and combats tend to be very dangerous most of the time. Everyone is very attached to their PCs (because I have designed things to encourage this attachment) and no one wants to die. Right now the two party leaders are on vicarages (I'm a seminarian and most of the rpg group are somehow associated with the seminary) and will be returning this Summer, however in the interim the party has suffered from indecision and a great amount of doing very little.
> 
> ...




Politics is fun.  This is totally separate from skills specifically but I find it helpful to figure out what the player's goals are when it comes to broad political goals.  It's easy to be paralyzed with indecision - mostly because there are so many options but your players don't have all the information that their characters do and they don't know how to proceed.Once you know that, you can help them with an approach.

You want to overthrow the Duke?  Here's what you know about him:  His vizier is power hungry, his wife is having an affair, etc...

If they take a lot of time planning and enjoy that, I think that is fine.  But if you want to move things forward quicker, You might want to introduce some time pressures.  Make them feel some urgency.  

"the wife of the Duke is a potential ally but you found out she's going to be assassinated tomorrow night"

I'm playing in a politicking game and we spend 4/5 session planning and 1 session 'doing'.  We like it and we know we have to be cautious.  The DM will randomly throw wrenches in our plotting and force us to act before we're ready.  It adds tension.

Has nothing to do with skills, I know.  

But to bring it back to your OP, sometimes giving info helps to move things forward and pushes players to action.

 I use passive skills a lot.  I will use passive History, Arcana, Religion scores as a way of deciding what kind of information a character knows as a baseline.  

You don't have to wait on the players to make a decision as to whether or not to research the library, you can use the person with the biggest passive knowledge skill to 'info-dump'.



5ekyu said:


> " If a difficult lock needs picking and there are no time constraints, why bother rolling? "
> 
> See, I can think of a lot of reasons, but as soon as I do it hits the conclusion layered into the rest of your post about " pointless" rolling or boring results.
> 
> ...




I get what you are saying and agree.  I don't want to get too nitpicky about an example I randomly came up with as I was making the post.  Sometimes locks are in an adventure - pre-written or otherwise - maybe it's on a chest and they already defeated everything.  The dc is 20 and the rogue has +8.  Given time, they'll open it.  I'll just narrate, "It's a tough lock, but after trying for a bit, you unlock it."  I don't want to change the narration and say the lock is broken because maybe they might want to keep the chest with the lock intact and use it to store their loot, or put something in it for safekeeping and return for it later etc....  But if there was a magic sword or healing potions inside, and they were hurt, and an ogre was trying to smash the door down, that +8 vs a dc 20 lock is going to make a big difference.

That's all I mean.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> Sure!  Let's say that there's a wall a PC wishes to climb.  The player's idea is that he wants to sneakily climb the wall in case there's a guard, but the player only addresses the immediate challenge and asks for a check to climb the wall.  The GM gets the roll, and narrates a successful climb, but then tells the player that they are spotted at the top by a guard because they weren't being stealthy.  Argument, naturally, occurs.
> 
> A version of this happened to me, as GM, so it's not outlandish.  And, yes, there are absolutely many ways this could have happened differently and avoided the situation.  That's really neither here nor there, because I can absolutely say that had I ascertained the goal, it would not have happened.  That other possibilities for avoidance exist doesn't undercut my method for making sure it doesn't happen again.
> 
> Also, on a failure, I now have more options than just narrating a problem.with climbing.  That's still on the table, but I can now thwart the goal as well by doing what I did before, only this time as a failure mode.



Sounds like its too bad the player didnt call for a stealth check while climbing!

More seruously, seems to me bith the examples (one by you and one earlier) are less examples of unstated goals as thry are unststed information on how... How far are you climbing, are you trying to be sneaky...etc and a GM just assuming either the worst or incompetence without asking any more.

Honestly, both cases would have been resolved without a problem by including **more** reference to game mechanics in the player statement.

I climb 25 feet up the 30 foot wall - tells the gm you arent climbing out to be spotted.

I climb the wall, using my steath skill, is that gonna be disadvantaged while climbing? 

Perhaps that a thing worth considering

**does the more one divorces the player from using the game mechanics in descriptions actually  lead to a greater risk of a natural language "gotcha" hapoening, given these GMs seem to,not ask follow-up questions before jumping to their narratives that cause problems (based on the examples they provide.)**

I know i have never had a moment,like that stealth climb when a player said "he makes a stealth check" while moving - that spoken mechanic told us both he was trying to be quiet.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

TaranTheWanderer said:


> Politics is fun.  This is totally separate from skills specifically but I find it helpful to figure out what the player's goals are when it comes to broad political goals.  It's easy to be paralyzed with indecision - mostly because there are so many options but your players don't have all the information that their characters do and they don't know how to proceed.Once you know that, you can help them with an approach.
> 
> You want to overthrow the Duke?  Here's what you know about him:  His vizier is power hungry, his wife is having an affair, etc...
> 
> ...



"I don't want to change the narration and say the lock is broken because..."

Likely its me not understanding but, where is this about changing the narration?

When i placed the chest i decided is it locked, broken, easy, hard, etc. There was no "changing" there it was defining. There wadnt a chest in any state that i changed.

After rhey get going, its known, well established rules in my game, that attempts and actions **can** change things. If not, why take actions?

Its also known that a failed ability check can lead to setbacks. A perfectly plausible result from a failed attempt at a difficult lock DC 20 (hard) would be the lock gets jammed or broken and cannot get picked (or maybe now its partially damaged, disadvantage applies and another failure can break it. Obviously, these can come with info that can be helpful - like its a dwarven lock - that ties into other elements.

To me its not changinga narrative other than just applying the results of an attempted action to the scene.


----------



## TaranTheWanderer (Mar 29, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> "I don't want to change the narration and say the lock is broken because..."
> 
> Likely its me not understanding but, where is this about changing the narration?
> 
> ...




I misunderstood.  I thought you were changing the narrative from a dc 20 lock to a broken lock.  

I made or am following  an adventure and it had a chest with dc 20 lock.  If  I adjudicate that, given a PC skill and knowledge and, given enough time, there probably won’t be a meaningful consequence to failing,  I won’t call for a roll.  I may adjudicate there will be a consequence or setback to failure and therefore Will call for a roll. 

If a player says, “I want to pick the lock!”   I say, “knock yourself out. “. Whether or not there is a consequence I’ll probably have them roll because that’s the player communicating to me that they want to do something cool with their character or show off a talent or specialty.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 29, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> "But before getting to the top, I'd like to stop and get a good [look around]"
> 
> Sorry but to me that isnt a goal, its not why you are climbing or what you are trying to achieve. Its telling the GM how far you will go.




Let me finish the quote of mine that you truncated... if a player saying they want their PC to climb the tower most of the way to get a good look around before summitting isn't an action and a goal, then I'm not sure what is.  And perhaps that doesn't even matter because our job, as DMs, is not to tell the player what their actions and goals should be, it's to adjudicate them in the context of the scene.  If the action and/or goal seem incomplete, of course the DM can - and should - prod for more.  Clarity is at the heart of this playstyle.  And please let's not mistake clarity for "magic words" as has been bandied about before.



5ekyu said:


> But in fact if it was a 5e game, the awkward moment was the GM ****skipping**** the stage where the player gets to choose the KO or kill decision when the creature hits zero.




As this is the D&D 5th Edition forum, of course we can assume it is a 5e game.  Again, it is up to the player to describe their action and goal so there is no confusion - and the DM to prompt them if it is unclear.  In combat, there is lots of short-hand going on.  Attack rolls can assumed most of the time, not called for by the DM.  Killing blows are assumed most of the time, so clarification is not necessary.  It's the players responsibility to declare the desire for a knock out sometime during the combat - it's not on the DM to suggest courses of action for the PC in combat, or any other time, really.  So, yeah, no awkward moment unless the player doesn't say how this attack is different.  Keep in mind, we're not looking to set up "gotchas", we're looking for fluidity in game play and everyone at the table contributes to that.  If a player retroactively says "Oh, I meant to knock it out not kill it" since they forgot to state the goal, well that's fine, it's just not fluid.  This playstyle isn't about being a jerk DM as some like to paint it as.



5ekyu said:


> Not to sound CR but you skipped the "how do you want to do this?" step 5e actually has when your melee attacks reduce monsters to zero.




The DM is in charge of narrating the results of the adventurers' actions - and as part of that, the DM can elect to have the player narrate instead, as in the case of taking down a foe.  I don't see where this is prescribed that the DM must ask the player "how do you want to do this" after a successful blow that brings a monster to 0 HP - but perhaps I missed it and you can point it out.  Regardless, it can get old if you are asking the same player how they used their sword differently this time to take down the 5th orc they've killed in the battle.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 29, 2019)

Ovinomancer said:


> But, I do not think that this is your problem.  Quite blunty, your issue appears to be one of communication and framing. And, it's common, but not altogether easy to fix.  The issue is that you are not providing enough information so that the players can tell what's at stake and what's possible.  There's a huge information disparity in D&D and it's sometimes hard to see from the GM side.  You know all the important details, but the players don't.  What's obvious to you isn't to them, and it's hard to "forget" things and put yourself in their shoes to see it.  I heartily recommend erring on the side of oversharing information.




I've actually considered this several times. I thought that perhaps in some way I was failing them by not giving them enough to grasp onto. I do give a lot of hints, but I'm very leery of stealing the party's success by giving away too much, leaving them feeling that they are just pursuing a color by number adventure. When the leaders were there this wasn't an issue, but you may be right on the money with regards to how I've been handling the rest of the group without them. I don't wish to overemphasize the "leaders", I call them that only because these two guys grasped things quickly and were quick to some action, even if it was the "wrong" action, it was movement, and I can work with that. However since they have been gone it's been a great deal more difficult. I will consider your criticism as confirmation that this might be what is going on and try to provide what feels like too much information to me and see how that pans out over the next two sessions. I am very sandbox and don't run many dungeons/linear stories, that may also be a problem. This group may need more of that rather than less.

Edit: BTW, you were very careful and diplomatic in offering your criticism and I'm appreciative of that. I realize you can never tell how someone will react to constructive criticism, but I very much appreciate your being willing to provide it. Anything that helps my game is a gift. So thanks.


----------



## iserith (Mar 29, 2019)

twofalls said:


> I am very sandbox and don't run many dungeons/linear stories, that may also be a problem. This group may need more of that rather than less.




Yeah, man, get them into a dungeon. There is no better place for players to gain confidence in decision-making. Plus, going into the underworld, facing your fears, and coming away with knowledge and gold to bring back to the community is part of the hero's journey. It will resonate and they may not even know why. Save the faction-based politicking for later, I say!


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> Let me finish the quote of mine that you truncated... if a player saying they want their PC to climb the tower most of the way to get a good look around before summitting isn't an action and a goal, then I'm not sure what is.  And perhaps that doesn't even matter because our job, as DMs, is not to tell the player what their actions and goals should be, it's to adjudicate them in the context of the scene.  If the action and/or goal seem incomplete, of course the DM can - and should - prod for more.  Clarity is at the heart of this playstyle.  And please let's not mistake clarity for "magic words" as has been bandied about before.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




From last to first...

DND 5e rules in the PHB state
"Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. *When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack*, the attacker can knock the creature out. *The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt.* The creature falls unconscious and is stable."

That makes it clear that when a creature is dropped to zero by melee attacks the attack can choose to Ko instead of kill.

yes, the Gms job is to narrate the results but that does not mean skipping past choices the player can make that alter the outcome.

point is, it was the Gm choice to skip over the stage where the player can choose (by RAW) that led to your allegedly "awkward" case of the Gm jumping to the wrong conclusion. This is not a case of a player not stating his goal when he should, but of the Gm not asking when the choice was there for the player.

OBVIOUSLY if the table has agreed to a house rule which says these have to be pre-declared before each attack - the player cannot know it will be a drop-to-zero before the attack and so must declare every time - things change but thats the house rule issue.

But for 5e - the minimum extent of "how do you want to do this" is - "Are you going to KO?" when the zero hit occurs.

First case - sorry but the point made was the player could just as well had declared the distance they travel up the wall, where they stop and *not* what they intended to do once they got their. 

its was an incomplete ACTION declaration - "how far do you climb" - not a lack of statement of whats in the mind of the character. 

Like i said, if a player tells me their character walks down the corridor towards the T intersection - i need to know "how far" to resolve that action, not "what is he thinking about doing once he gets there." I cannot imagine circumstances in which i as Gm would "gotcha" him by having his character just walk out into the corridor and get spotted without him having given me more info. 

It seems like the term goal here is being used more in the manner of describing the action and that the assumption really being put forth is that without that stated the Gm *will* move straight to a means in which that bites the character. yet at the same time its oh so greatly protested as "not gotcha" and "not magic words".

Me, i just show them in play and by simply asking "how far?" a few times early on if i need to. 

But, in fact, i find that when the players-to-Gm conversation *includes* game mechanical info like "move 25'" or "making stealth check or using stealth" these examples are practically eliminated. 

So, in my experience, your climb 25' up a 30' wall is resolved the same whether or not your goal is to peek over the top or to ferret out a item from the cliff thats only 25' up. You as a player told me how far you wanted to climb - knowing you do need to define "where" when you say "i move". 

Again i come back to that the more one forces the players away from the mechanics, it seems the more they are opened up to getting these "GM decides how to resolve" that go against them - based on the examples provided. 

But thats just me, perhaps.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 29, 2019)

iserith said:


> Yeah, man, get them into a dungeon. There is no better place for players to gain confidence in decision-making. Plus, going into the underworld, facing your fears, and coming away with knowledge and gold to bring back to the community is part of the hero's journey. It will resonate and they may not even know why. Save the faction-based politicking for later, I say!




I'm describing my game here, so if you aren't interested in reading that, you may want to stop here. Fair warning.

So the politics are a definite part of the game. I'm running a very home brew version of the Tomb of Annihilation, but I've added so much of my own material that they are 5th level and haven't even started to explore the jungle yet (this was intentional). The game is almost a year old. I turned Zindar into a full Gold Dragon guardian of the Port who has been apolitical until recently. I made the PC's his factors (the first he has had in living memory) and sent them after the pirates, which has been the majority of the game to date. I created this situation to give the players a patron who can guide them a bit because they were floundering about trying to decide what to do. Also, one of the PC's is a member of a noble household who is basically dating a jungle scamp (his RL wife), and so I decided to turn that into a scandal and a theme in the game. Politics figure prominently in the game but do not predominate. The fact that Zindar has factors now has turned the city into a brewers vat of political maneuvering between the princes with the PC's and their city contacts as pawns.

I have made General Ras Nsi reach across Chult more powerful and turned the pirate operation into a Yuan-ti directed attempt by him to bring Nyanzaru to its knees by preying on merchant shipping. The PC's were contracted by Zindar to find the source of the pirates who have been heavily raiding shipping and taking prisoners and loot, and they successfully raided the pirates cove at Jahaka Anchorage. There they have disrupted but not destroyed the pirates operations, eliminating Cptns Lankilar and Al-Saryak and capturing the Stirge (which has been refitted and repaired and now is in the PC's hands). Cptn Elok Jaharwon and the Dragonfang (his ship) are still at large and are a recurring enemy. I created a Yuan-ti outpost on one of the Daughter Isles and they found information at Jahaka indicating that all captured prisoners (including some people the PC's know) have been taken there by the pirates. The outpost is fronted by a pirate/slavers haven named Silvershore where Pureblood Yuan-ti disguised as slavers purchase human cargo and send them up to the Manor house (a place of shadows and fear to the residents of Silvershore) where they are never heard from again. The entire operation supports the pirates and slavers operating in the sea of Chult with the aim of damaging the Port's mercantile business so badly that Ras Nsi can over run the Port with more of his undead minions. Prisoners taken to the Manor are ritually sacrificed to Dendar the Night Mother in a cave temple complex under the fortified Manor. 

The PC's have used the Stirge to sail to the Daughter Isles and have penetrated the jungle there to the Manor which they assaulted last game, setting off a general alarm. Exhausted of HP and spells they are beating a retreat into the jungle to rest up, setting ablaze as much as they can of the upper story of the Manor (its made of stone with wood supports) to discourage pursuit. 

Unbeknownst to them Cptn Elok in the Dragonfang encountered the refitted Stirge which was anchored offshore waiting for the successful return of the PC's from their raid and a battle ensued. Both ships were damaged and forced to retreat, and now Elok is at Silvershore and the smoke from the Manor will alert the town of trouble at the mansion. I've decided that an escaped slave named "Mahala-Mahala" (Free Free in Zulu) who is living as a hermit in the jungle will become a savior of sorts as the PC's, wounded and harried by Yuan-ti/Pirate search parties, will find shelter and information from him.

So the cave complex beneath the Manor is a small dungeon for them to explore. The first in the game to date.

And there is where we are at this point. Thanks for humoring me.


----------



## Bawylie (Mar 29, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> Maybe it works at your table, due to your own social contract, but it is very clearly against the process of play, which states that players declare their actions rather than their goals.
> 
> There's no way I could possibly play the way you run it, for the exact reason I don't play any of those other games which are designed to facilitate that sort of thing. It violates causality too much, which breaks immersion for me, and gives me a headache. It's great if you can run your game in such a way that everyone has fun, but you're fighting against the tide.




Alright, but it doesn’t clearly state that players declare their actions. It states, “the players describe what they want to do.” That’s PH 181. 

I don’t feel a semantics argument is worthwhile, but if the argument is “it doesn’t say GOALS” anywhere, you have to concede it also doesn’t say DECLARE ACTIONS anywhere either. 

That leaves us with “what they want to do.” I think you’d agree with me that the players should mentally put themselves in their characters’ shoes/perspective and decide on a course of action that seems best to that character. 

Whether that course of action is straightforward (kill a goblin) or broad (get into the guarded tower), the player must necessarily say out loud what they want to do. We can’t really play unless they do. 

Now if what they want to do IS straightforward, I think we all agree that’s sufficient. DM can set a DC if they feel that’s warranted for the situation, or rely on the goblin’s AC or whatever. The player rolls, and we determine the outcome of the action. 

But the sticky tricky bit is that “what the player wants to do” is not always one action. “Get into the guarded tower” is not a declared action. And it’s not sufficient for play. It’s great that you want to get it in, but a piece is missing. 

Take the opposite approach. “I want to sneak.” Well, cool, more power to you. But that’s also not quite sufficient. Where do you want to go? Who do you sneak past? Even if you do creep up the main road that the guards are watching, you’ll be spotted. I think a fair DM here might pause and ask for some clarification. 

Now “I want to sneak into the guarded tower” is essentially as good as “I want to kill the goblin.” It’s light on details but at least we have some idea what the player wants to do, and the action by which that player makes “what they want to do” happen. That’s something we can adjudicate. We can go further, and clarify “by spell or by weapon?” “Sneak up the wall or through the back?” And that may affect how hard the action is. 

Anyway, for my games, I ask that the players tell me “what they want to do” and add “how they want to do it” which almost always includes an action. 

Leaving the semantics bit aside, “intent and approach” is functionally the same as “goal and action” or “what and how” or “plan and execution.” And I believe it’s a best practice to make sure DM and player are on the same page before dice get rolled. 

“Players describe what they want to do” is helpfully broad enough to glide over straightforward stuff, but also leaves plenty of room for the DM to say “hang on a sec, how’s that work?” where what they want isn’t reasonably clear or straightforward at all. 

“I’ll just tell the guard we have business here.” Plainly the goal is to bypass the guard. But is this a deception? Persuasion? An intimidation? Or a distraction for something else? Knowing that helps me know what ability score applies, what skill might apply, and what DC to set. Not knowing that, I may not have sufficient info to set a fair DC. I want to be fair to my players.  

So the HOW matters as much as the WHAT. Or, the goal matters as much as the action.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 29, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> From last to first...
> 
> DND 5e rules in the PHB state
> "Sometimes an attacker wants to incapacitate a foe, rather than deal a killing blow. *When an attacker reduces a creature to 0 hit points with a melee attack*, the attacker can knock the creature out. *The attacker can make this choice the instant the damage is dealt.* The creature falls unconscious and is stable."
> ...




If the DM telegraphed that the enemy was on its last legs, then it completely makes sense for the player to declare the knock out if they hit the enemy with their attack.  As you quote: "The attacker can make this choice" - they don't need the DM's permission to choose.  Or are you saying for every potential killing blow in your game you, as DM, ask the player "Are you going to KO?"  In a combat-heavy game, I stand by the claim that doing so over and over and over would be quite tedious.




5ekyu said:


> First case - sorry but the point made was the player could just as well had declared the distance they travel up the wall, where they stop and *not* what they intended to do once they got their.
> 
> its was an incomplete ACTION declaration - "how far do you climb" - not a lack of statement of whats in the mind of the character.
> 
> ...




You are absolutely right that the DM should ask for more clarity about the a player's choice of ambiguous action, regardless of playstyle: "I climb the tower" or "I walk down the hallway".  That's exactly what my preferred playstyle encourages when a player is not clear.  If the player states an approach and goal, then the DM can then easily do their job of adjudicating the action.  A creative approach and/or goal can lead to a success without a roll and sometimes can shape the story in a way the DM had not previously envisioned.

Case-in-point:

PCs had just cleared out the basement lair of some nasty monsters.  They were intent on finding some treasure in the crumbled remains of the base of an old tower that was in the basement.  They worked together to succeed on some INT (Investigation) and STR (Athletics) checks to enter the tower without collapsing it further.  They found the dusty skeletal remains of a long-dead humanoid with a note. The Storm Sorcerer was convinced this could not be everything and so said he was searching the floor for any cracks.  After indicating "you bet", he then said he would cast create water to see if it drained through the cracks and then listen to what he heard.  Now I did not have anything planned here, but after that creative approach and goal, I just improvised and said it sounded like the water was falling and splashing onto the floor of a hidden chamber below.  Some more good roleplaying and successful rolls to not cave in the floor resulted in them finding a chest which I had not even planned.  Good fun for all which would have been lost had the player simply said "I roll perception" or some other such short-hand that did not involve our approach and goal style.


----------



## robus (Mar 29, 2019)

iserith said:


> Yeah, man, get them into a dungeon. There is no better place for players to gain confidence in decision-making. Plus, going into the underworld, facing your fears, and coming away with knowledge and gold to bring back to the community is part of the hero's journey. It will resonate and they may not even know why. Save the faction-based politicking for later, I say!




Yeah, my group absolutely hates political stuff. The council meetings in ToD were just boring noise to them, so I quickly learned to make them into simple mission setters. "Well done on mission X, now we need people to Y and do Z. With that accomplished we should be in a position to make the final assault on the Well of Dragons!"

My players, at least, are very happy to have clear goals for their adventures.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 29, 2019)

robus said:


> Yeah, my group absolutely hates political stuff. The council meetings in ToD were just boring noise to them, so I quickly learned to make them into simple mission setters. "Well done on mission X, now we need people to Y and do Z. With that accomplished we should be in a position to make the final assault on the Well of Dragons!"
> 
> My players, at least, are very happy to have clear goals for their adventures.




They tell me not to change anything because they are enjoying the game so much. I just wish I could get more done.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> If the DM telegraphed that the enemy was on its last legs, then it completely makes sense for the player to declare the knock out if they hit the enemy with their attack.  As you quote: "The attacker can make this choice" - they don't need the DM's permission to choose.  Or are you saying for every potential killing blow in your game you, as DM, ask the player "Are you going to KO?"  In a combat-heavy game, I stand by the claim that doing so over and over and over would be quite tedious.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Do i ask a player at every Ko moment are they gonna Ko or do i stop a player from telling in advance they want to Ko? nope not at all. but then for me a player getting the "zero hit" and the player then interjecting "but i want to Ko" is not "awkward" if i started to skip past that step. 

Remember the claim about how awkward and problematic the KO thing was was made by someone about how not having goal stated before would lead to resolutions that were not the intent - but so far those "examples" have been either unclear and incomplete action declarations (where Gm went toe worst way with it) or cases where the Gm skipped their decision step and then chose to describe that result as "awkward" in their use of it as an example of the problem.

To me, in my games, i do the actual "how do you want to do this" for dropping non-minions specifically in part because it allows the player to choose "KO or dramatic kill" making that decision step a part of the player involvement. For minion drops, we do not do it but we all know they can choose to KO and so the "wait, hang on i want to KO" is not awkward if it happens at all, its just a normal part of play that happens relatively rarely. i honestly cannot think of a time when the players wanted to Ko and it wasn't already obvious or on the table discussion-wise before the event happened. But, if it ever did, it would be just another character choice that adjusts the narrative and resolution, which in my games is more the goal of those, not something awkward.

***

As for your chest thingy, i myself house ruled Search checks to work like Foraging checks. So, by default, i do not have to have something "planned" for a character to gain benefit from their skills at searching. Just like with the great outdoors, i do not bother to assume that i have placed every item of any value or interest before a game session begins in precise places on the map. So, what you describe would have come out of a character having a very good result on a search check in my games. 

As for the "creative approach" bit, well, i guess we each have our own thresholds for what constitutes "creative" as liquid on floor to find cracks has been used countless times in the various lore and fiction so... we wouldn't call that "creative", especially not say the tenth, twentieth or fiftieth time. 

What we would call it is "effective" or to put a tighter bow on it "advantageous" and it would likely lead to advantage on the skill check unless there was some reason it wouldn't. After all, the guidelines for advantage specifically call out other actions that increase your chances. 

But for all that, if you did the water pouring trick and were not good at searching and rolled a poor result anyway, thats not gonna result in you finding some secret stuff  that matters (at least not without setbacks.)

But again, i did not need to know their goal, just their actions. it really did not matter whether in their heart of hearts they were hoping to find a secret chamber or mysterious runes under the dust. i needed their actions - not their goals. 

have a player who takes plenty of time during play describing his character's goals. he goes on about what his character is thinking and why he is doing stuff, when i ask him "what are you doing?"

I literally just had a chat about it at lunch. he said "but i like roleplaying my character!" That led me to say "You telling the other players out of character why your character is doing what he is doing is not "roleplayin" your character. You telling us what your character is doing, what your character is saying and other things about WHAT is happening is roleplaying your character. You making decisions in-character is roleplaying."

It wasn't a discussion i started BTW it was two players having a discussion that i got brought into.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 29, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> As for your chest thingy, i myself house ruled Search checks to work like Foraging checks. So, by default, i do not have to have something "planned" for a character to gain benefit from their skills at searching. Just like with the great outdoors, i do not bother to assume that i have placed every item of any value or interest before a game session begins in precise places on the map. So, what you describe would have come out of a character having a very good result on a search check in my games.




Are you saying that your players know that treasure found is generated by their search tests, that it exists or doesn't exist based on what they roll? Is this really how you play? It's one thing for this to be a true yet hidden aspect of the game, but another thing to be an open fact. I want to think I'm misunderstanding you because if this is how you run these things, then why do your players bother coming to game? If adventure treasures are simply generated by their own dice rolls, then were is the sense of a real world existing behind their adventuring? It would be like playing games of Bethesda's Daggerfalls where all dungeons and awards are randomly generated. I must be misunderstanding you.

Edit: Unless, perhaps, these little rewards are so ancillary and unimportant to your players that it's just not that big a deal. That would be an unusual circumstance, but within the realm of possibility I suppose.

2nd edit: I actually found the liquid on the floor idea to be very creative, and I also would have rewarded it. Just because something has been thought of before, doesn't mean that everyone has been informed of that thought. There is nothing new under the sun, as King Solomon writes in Ecclesiastes. It doesn't follow then, that there is no creativity under the sun.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 29, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> With all due respect, you are misunderstanding the plastyle.  The statement of goals is a perfectly natural extension of declaring actions and simply allows the players to have greater agency over their PCs - with the added benefit of lessening the workload of the DM and perhaps even allowing a scene to go in a direction the DM never imagined.  It's that last one which is very enjoyable to me.



I'll take your word for it, that I'm misinterpreting in this case. It just sounds a lot like the classic example from non-causal games, where failing to open a door will lead the GM to narrate that guards to show up - not because you made too much noise in your attempt, and they were nearby, so they came to investigate - but because your stated goal was to get through the door, and the guards being present will prevent you from reaching your goal, so the GM decides that it's a plausible coincidence. You take an action, and what happens next depends on the GM's meta-game knowledge of your motive, rather than having anything to do with the action itself.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 29, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Do i ask a player at every Ko moment are they gonna Ko or do i stop a player from telling in advance they want to Ko? nope not at all. but then for me a player getting the "zero hit" and the player then interjecting "but i want to Ko" is not "awkward" if i started to skip past that step.
> 
> Remember the claim about how awkward and problematic the KO thing was was made by someone about how not having goal stated before would lead to resolutions that were not the intent - but so far those "examples" have been either unclear and incomplete action declarations (where Gm went toe worst way with it) or cases where the Gm skipped their decision step and then chose to describe that result as "awkward" in their use of it as an example of the problem.
> 
> To me, in my games, i do the actual "how do you want to do this" for dropping non-minions specifically in part because it allows the player to choose "KO or dramatic kill" making that decision step a part of the player involvement. For minion drops, we do not do it but we all know they can choose to KO and so the "wait, hang on i want to KO" is not awkward if it happens at all, its just a normal part of play that happens relatively rarely. i honestly cannot think of a time when the players wanted to Ko and it wasn't already obvious or on the table discussion-wise before the event happened. But, if it ever did, it would be just another character choice that adjusts the narrative and resolution, which in my games is more the goal of those, not something awkward.




I only said it would be awkward if the DM described the killing blow of the axe cleaving the orc in twain, only to have the player say "whoa I meant to KO!"  You know, awkward in that we now rewind a gory scene into one that didn't happen.  If the player said they were swinging the axe in an attempt to knock out the orc well that solves the issue now, doesn't it?
I also said it was fine (though not ideal) if the DM said the "orc drops" and then the player said "I just wanted to KO."  No harm, no foul.

Not really interested in picking nits with you, though, so that's enough of that.



5ekyu said:


> As for your chest thingy, i myself house ruled Search checks to work like Foraging checks. So, by default, i do not have to have something "planned" for a character to gain benefit from their skills at searching. Just like with the great outdoors, i do not bother to assume that i have placed every item of any value or interest before a game session begins in precise places on the map. So, what you describe would have come out of a character having a very good result on a search check in my games.
> 
> As for the "creative approach" bit, well, i guess we each have our own thresholds for what constitutes "creative" as liquid on floor to find cracks has been used countless times in the various lore and fiction so... we wouldn't call that "creative", especially not say the tenth, twentieth or fiftieth time.




My players enjoyed the moment, so it really doesn't matter if you think it overplayed.

Do you ever wonder why you've been called rude multiple times on these forums?  Perhaps you simply don't care. Anyway, moving on... 



5ekyu said:


> What we would call it is "effective" or to put a tighter bow on it "advantageous" and it would likely lead to advantage on the skill check unless there was some reason it wouldn't. After all, the guidelines for advantage specifically call out other actions that increase your chances.
> 
> But for all that, if you did the water pouring trick and were not good at searching and rolled a poor result anyway, thats not gonna result in you finding some secret stuff  that matters (at least not without setbacks.)




I gave the player an auto-success because it was my prerogative to do so as DM and just narrate the result of their approach and goal.  Yes, I also could also have given them Advantage on a roll, but I did not have any meaningful consequence of failure in mind that fit the scene at hand, so I did not bother.  I could have invented a consequence, but again, it didn't fit the flow of the narrative so I skipped right to the reward.



5ekyu said:


> But again, i did not need to know their goal, just their actions. it really did not matter whether in their heart of hearts they were hoping to find a secret chamber or mysterious runes under the dust. i needed their actions - not their goals.
> 
> have a player who takes plenty of time during play describing his character's goals. he goes on about what his character is thinking and why he is doing stuff, when i ask him "what are you doing?"
> 
> ...




I agree, a goal alone is not enough, which is why we ask for an approach.  What is your action and what is it you're trying to accomplish?  I will refer you back to [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION]'s post if you missed it.  He sums it up nicely here, but you might read the whole of what he wrote to keep it all in context:


Bawylie said:


> Leaving the semantics bit aside, “intent and approach” is functionally the same as “goal and action” or “what and how” or “plan and execution.” And I believe it’s a best practice to make sure DM and player are on the same page before dice get rolled.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 29, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> I'll take your word for it, that I'm misinterpreting in this case. It just sounds a lot like the classic example from non-causal games, where failing to open a door will lead the GM to narrate that guards to show up - not because you made too much noise in your attempt, and they were nearby, so they came to investigate - but because your stated goal was to get through the door, and the guards being present will prevent you from reaching your goal, so the GM decides that it's a plausible coincidence. You take an action, and what happens next depends on the GM's meta-game knowledge of your motive, rather than having anything to do with the action itself.




Yeah, Jerk DMs will be jerk DMs no matter what the playstyle.  They're playing to win, not to provide interesting challenges for the players and to help create a fun time for all.  Those types eventually get weeded out when the players call them out on their consistently bogus rulings.


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Mar 29, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> Yeah, Jerk DMs will be jerk DMs no matter what the playstyle.  They're playing to win, not to provide interesting challenges for the players and to help create a fun time for all.  Those types eventually get weeded out when the players call them out on their consistently bogus rulings.



Yes, but there are also games where that is the legitimate and expected course of play, because the game is concerned more with creating an interesting narrative than in modeling causal processes. Those GMs aren't (necessarily) being jerks, when they play those games and make such rulings.

My comment was just that D&D, specifically, is not one of those games.


----------



## James Crane (Mar 29, 2019)

Sure, but it almost seems like it'd have to be all or nothing. I feel like the current skill set is purposefully broad. If you start making more specific proficiencies,  it seems like you'd have to flesh a lot of them out and change how many characters get, etc.

I mean, it's totally doable and something I might try when I get more time, but as of now I don't think it really exists.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 29, 2019)

Saelorn said:


> Yes, but there are also games where that is the legitimate and expected course of play, because the game is concerned more with creating an interesting narrative than in modeling causal processes. Those GMs aren't (necessarily) being jerks, when they play those games and make such rulings.
> 
> My comment was just that D&D, specifically, is not one of those games.




I guess I disagree quite a bit with that conclusion.  D&D 5e strikes a really good balance between creating an interesting narrative and modeling causal processes.  The two are certainly not mutually exclusive.  Also, an interesting narrative need not entail the DM forcing their will upon the players, if that's what you are implying.  That is the most uninteresting narrative, IMO.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 29, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> Yeah, Jerk DMs will be jerk DMs no matter what the playstyle.  They're playing to win, not to provide interesting challenges for the players and to help create a fun time for all.  Those types eventually get weeded out when the players call them out on their consistently bogus rulings.




I don't think Saelorn's talking about jerk DMs. 

Earlier, you gave an example of play that I'd call a positive example of the style y'all are discussing:


> PCs had just cleared out the basement lair of some nasty monsters. They were intent on finding some treasure in the crumbled remains of the base of an old tower that was in the basement. They worked together to succeed on some INT (Investigation) and STR (Athletics) checks to enter the tower without collapsing it further. They found the dusty skeletal remains of a long-dead humanoid with a note. The Storm Sorcerer was convinced this could not be everything and so said he was searching the floor for any cracks. After indicating "you bet", he then said he would cast create water to see if it drained through the cracks and then listen to what he heard. Now I did not have anything planned here, but after that creative approach and goal, I just improvised and said it sounded like the water was falling and splashing onto the floor of a hidden chamber below. Some more good roleplaying and successful rolls to not cave in the floor resulted in them finding a chest which I had not even planned. Good fun for all which would have been lost had the player simply said "I roll perception" or some other such short-hand that did not involve our approach and goal style



.
There's nothing of the jerk DM in that at all. You're being a nice, good DM. But inventing a treasure cache because you liked the player's action is very much like inventing guards because a check failed.

I've been avoiding doing that sort of thing in my current megadungeon campaign.

If I had previously placed the treasure cache, but had never conceived that it could be found by flooding the room, that'd be cool. If the guards were already established (even if only in my notes) and the attempt to open the door drew _those_ guards, that'd be cool.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Mar 29, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> I don't think Saelorn's talking about jerk DMs.
> 
> Earlier, you gave an example of play that I'd call a positive example of the style y'all are discussing:
> .
> ...




That makes complete sense.  In my "defense", the treasure wasn't fully invented.  There was another chest elsewhere (DMs Guild adventure) that simply was not going to be found in the time that we had left so I played the "quantum treasure" card.  And now to incriminate myself, it was not at all the same chest as in the published adventure so I guess in the end, yep, guilty as charged.  Not sure if that kind of improv is inherently bad - I mean sometimes (lots of times?) players go off the figurative or literal path and the DM doesn't want to just say "nuthin' happens" every time.  Maybe the good middle ground is to have a really random table at the ready so it's not seen as pure DM whim (although the players in my game still don't know what I did).  On the other hand, I can see how it could be abused both by a DM and by players who know that is the DM's schtick.  Anyway, thanks for getting me to cogitate on that one!  Always more to learn about the craft...


----------



## twofalls (Mar 29, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> That makes complete sense.  In my "defense", the treasure wasn't fully invented.  There was another chest elsewhere (DMs Guild adventure) that simply was not going to be found in the time that we had left so I played the "quantum treasure" card.  And now to incriminate myself, it was not at all the same chest as in the published adventure so I guess in the end, yep, guilty as charged.  Not sure if that kind of improv is inherently bad - I mean sometimes (lots of times?) players go off the figurative or literal path and the DM doesn't want to just say "nuthin' happens" every time.  Maybe the good middle ground is to have a really random table at the ready so it's not seen as pure DM whim (although the players in my game still don't know what I did).  On the other hand, I can see how it could be abused both by a DM and by players who know that is the DM's schtick.  Anyway, thanks for getting me to cogitate on that one!  Always more to learn about the craft...




Of course it isn't inherently bad. Nothing that enhances the game is bad (unless it is, and when it is you know it). Rolling with the game is the mutual creation of the story that is the whole reason the game comes alive and turns into a dynamic experience. Anyone can read a script, and I think we can all agree that those DM's who do that are typically not much fun to play under. Some of the greatest game ideas I've ever had as a storyteller have actually come from the mouths of players who had no idea that I just rewrote my entire plotline because brilliance poured out of their throats and they didn't even realize it. And when they figure the plot out, and think that they came to the right conclusions because I as a DM must have masterfully laid things out for them to understand, do I tell them that they came up with the ideas themselves that I just ran with? Hell no! My players have a blast, I have a blast, and the creative ball rolls back and forth between us, even if they don't realize it. That is called good DMing.

What I wrote about earlier wasn't an objection to making changes on the fly, it was an objection to letting the players know that you are ad hoc in your changes, or that you are allowing the dice to decide important aspects of the game. Its not a crime to do these things, but it sure damages the suspension of disbelief and thus the game if you advertise the fact. Leave the mystery in the game, don't advertise your system at the expense of your story.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

twofalls said:


> Are you saying that your players know that treasure found is generated by their search tests, that it exists or doesn't exist based on what they roll? Is this really how you play? It's one thing for this to be a true yet hidden aspect of the game, but another thing to be an open fact. I want to think I'm misunderstanding you because if this is how you run these things, then why do your players bother coming to game? If adventure treasures are simply generated by their own dice rolls, then were is the sense of a real world existing behind their adventuring? It would be like playing games of Bethesda's Daggerfalls where all dungeons and awards are randomly generated. I must be misunderstanding you.
> 
> Edit: Unless, perhaps, these little rewards are so ancillary and unimportant to your players that it's just not that big a deal. That would be an unusual circumstance, but within the realm of possibility I suppose.
> 
> 2nd edit: I actually found the liquid on the floor idea to be very creative, and I also would have rewarded it. Just because something has been thought of before, doesn't mean that everyone has been informed of that thought. There is nothing new under the sun, as King Solomon writes in Ecclesiastes. It doesn't follow then, that there is no creativity under the sun.



Yes, my players know my rules. I dont tend to hide house tules from them.

As for your seeming disbelief, are you aware that what I described is how Foraging checks in 5e are handled? Gm assigns a DC based on the situation and terrain and a successful check finds useful/valuable stuff and failures can get really interesting. The GM did not need to pre-game "place" flora, fauna and water for the players to find. The results of checks determine it. Iirc its DMG under wilderness stuff but mentioned in the DMG.

Also, perhaps you have heard of Random encounters where other rolls adjusted by situation, actions, choices etc can lead to various events that the characters may encounter. Agsin, not needed for the GM to pre-set these to specific spots.

There are also AP where it defines miscellaneous "stuff of value kinds of things that are scavengable etc - determined randomly, not by pre-set location and amounts.

The perhaps significant difference between my point about it and the poster I responded to was his was given automatically as a reward for creativity. It did not "exist" was not true for him either until X happened. The difference was in theirs X was "gm liked what the player said" and for me it was "a success at a task by the character" if you will. 

As for why my players bother coming to game, if I go by what they have told me, it's because they love my games. I don't think this house rule had any real impact on that, negatively at least. For the guys with exceptional search skills (and less often others) it does often lead yo very meaningful scenes and follow-ups, so I can say it added to their enjoyment in a few cases just off my head. 

Are these finds unimportant to the characters, not hardly. To the players, nope. Heck, some of them have been more important to them than the "placed" treasures were. 

As for your take on creativity, that's great. I am all happy for you 9n that regard. But, curious if you would call it "creative" the next three times, the next ten.  If not, if that water trick stops generating treasure cuz it's now labelled "routine" , seems like it will stop getting used. 

In my game, once it's used, once its seen as "effective" it will keep its benefit long term. That way we can maintain a very consistent world. If something stops being effective, they look for "why" and z better "why" than "it's not creative snymore."

But that's us.

Not necessarily for everyone.


Oh, edit to add

At the start of each session, my players deal me cards face down 
I take them and use them to add to the evdning's play. 

Hearts equals chance to help someone with aid or get aid yourself.
Diamonds means opportunity fore more loot.
Spades equals challenge OS an environmental or passive passive nature - floods, bad weather, blighted area.
Clubs represents additional combat threats.

Sometimes, these radically change the defining in unpredicted ways. 

So there is another case where we get results from more than just GM predos. 

That has been loads of fun, according to them.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 29, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> As for why my players bother coming to game, if I go by what they have told me, it's because they love my games. I don't think this house rule had any real impact on that, negatively at least. For the guys with exceptional search skills (and less often others) it does often lead yo very meaningful scenes and follow-ups, so I can say it added to their enjoyment in a few cases just off my head.




I wasn't pretending to not understand, I really don't get it. However you cannot argue with success, and if your players love your games then you are to be congratulated (really, seriously congratulated, being a good DM isn't easy). How you describe it and I understand it wouldn't ever work for me, but then I'm only hearing you describe it, and that isn't the same thing as experiencing your running it. Much is lost in that transition.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 29, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Oh, edit to add
> 
> At the start of each session, my players deal me cards face down
> I take them and use them to add to the evdning's play.
> ...




That's creative, I've heard of systems that do similar things, typically with fate pointconcepts were the players get to influence the world during the game.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

twofalls said:


> I wasn't pretending to not understand, I really don't get it. However you cannot argue with success, and if your players love your games then you are to be congratulated (really, seriously congratulated, being a good DM isn't easy). How you describe it and I understand it wouldn't ever work for me, but then I'm only hearing you describe it, and that isn't the same thing as experiencing your running it. Much is lost in that transition.



Perhaps. Folks have different preferences and for some a gm changing anything is like some form of din because for thrir gameplay a gm is supposed to be a referee of sorts. 

Me, nah, not my style. 

For the players I tend to attract and who stay, the idea that things are more driven by them, their characters and their choices, actions, aptitudes than my pre-set, pre-fab, pre-run plan and numbered map spots seems to make them happy.

Go figure. 

But again, I find that works best when it's not hidden. I tell them straight up about my dirty dozen- list of stuff to personalize and add-on for each character (race, class, background x 4 characters = dozen.) Those getting added in and seeded in as the consequences of successes (usually exceptional ones) keeps that sense of "what I do matters" reinforced.

But again, not for dveryone.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

twofalls said:


> I wasn't pretending to not understand, I really don't get it. However you cannot argue with success, and if your players love your games then you are to be congratulated (really, seriously congratulated, being a good DM isn't easy). How you describe it and I understand it wouldn't ever work for me, but then I'm only hearing you describe it, and that isn't the same thing as experiencing your running it. Much is lost in that transition.



Let me ask you to perhaps indulge me with a follow-up question.

If the results from the character deciding to search a room led to a wandering monster encounter and on that monster they found treasure, would that also be something you dont understand? That's an unplanned monster and treasure find.

If not, if that's ok and hey how things are done sometimes (like since earliest dnd) why then is the result being unplanned treasure find without the monster so beyond understanding?


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

twofalls said:


> That's creative, I've heard of systems that do similar things, typically with fate pointconcepts were the players get to influence the world during the game.



So, in a recent session, characters were heading up a rise to get yo the necromancer top the hills. They knew there were undead sll over the place and scouting had spotted a couple particular badbones.

On the way up, the druid use Pass without Trace twice at key points of vulnerability.

In both cases, I flipped a face card club, described one of the bigger threats either heading thrir way or crossing the path behind them and just keeping going because of the PWoT. 

Each turn of card got an "oh crap" as they saw BIG FIGHT and then a hoot of "Hell yeah" as they saw concrete PWOT payoff. The druid was ecstatic - not just hearing "they walked by" but seeing me "burn" a card. 

Later on, they saw a number of the strays heading west - out of their way. They realized the dead were going after bug bears the scouts had spotted and that this really did them a bit of assist at a key point - enough for advantage not auto-success. I turned over the 7 hearts for "mid-rank help"  and so they made it to the top with a bit more resources than they could have had. 

Not for everyone but works for us. Might be part of why they bother to even  show up. Hard to say.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 29, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Let me ask you to perhaps indulge me with a follow-up question.
> 
> If the results from the character deciding to search a room led to a wandering monster encounter and on that monster they found treasure, would that also be something you dont understand? That's an unplanned monster and treasure find.
> 
> If not, if that's ok and hey how things are done sometimes (like since earliest dnd) why then is the result being unplanned treasure find without the monster so beyond understanding?




No, you are not catching what I am trying to say, and that may be my not saying it well. Randomness in and of itself is not bad, but to my way of playing, story is everything. I'm first and foremost telling a story with my players. Story that out of necessity involves system because we are playing a game, but with regards to how I present the world I want the system to be as innocuous as possible. I want the focus to be the setting, the immediate surroundings, and the story that flows through both of those. So when my players are rooting around in the cellar of a tower and one of them pours water onto the floor (to borrow our earlier example) I don't want it in the players minds that if they score the needed 15 suddenly treasure "appears". I want them to be excited that they discovered something that might possibly have a treasure hidden in a poorly sealed floorboard with a space beneath it. I don't often use random wandering monsters. I do when having one will add to the story I'm telling, but I don't announce to the party that I'm now rolling one of the two wandering monster checks the game calls for every day in the jungle. It just happens, like it would if you were living the story in the heat of the jungle where visibility is poor and the heat of the day is causing sweat to blur your vision. Is there an understanding that there is a system underneath it all, sure, but I want that meta to be as seamless and invisible as possible. In my games, I aim for suspension of disbelief. Verisimilitude. 

You are right when you say that this isn't for everyone. I've played in groups before where the game was really just a tabletop wargame, and they loved it. I was bored out of my mind and never returned, but that didn't mean those guys played wrong. A good DM knows his players and provides a game that they will most enjoy, and vice versa.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 29, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Not for everyone but works for us. Might be part of why they bother to even  show up. Hard to say.




I think you took this harder than I intended it. There wasn't any acrimony in me when I wrote it. If you felt there was I apologize.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

twofalls said:


> I think you took this harder than I intended it. There wasn't any acrimony in me when I wrote it. If you felt there was I apologize.



Well asking someone why anyone would even show up to their games seems a bit dismissive of their gaming style.

I have z feeling had I said it folks would be lining up to tell me I am being rude. 

But then it's a thing rounds here anyway.


----------



## 77IM (Mar 29, 2019)

As a public service, for anyone looking to homebrew more fine-grained proficiency levels, I went and made a sheet of fractional proficiency bonus by level.

5e already has rules for half-proficiency and double-proficiency. I added a column for one-and-a-half-proficiency, which gives a nice 4-rank system for skill proficiency levels (5 ranks, if you count non-proficient).

For a smoother curve, I calculated proficiency two ways. The multiplication way is straightforward and based on the language in the PHB. For the division way, I made the table for double-proficiency first, and made it increase every two levels so that the bonus would never jump by 2 points from one level to the next. Then I divided that to get the other bonuses. This turns out to have the exact same results for proficiency and half-proficiency, but smooths out the bonus increases for double-proficiency and one-and-a-half proficiency.


----------



## 5ekyu (Mar 29, 2019)

twofalls said:


> No, you are not catching what I am trying to say, and that may be my not saying it well. Randomness in and of itself is not bad, but to my way of playing, story is everything. I'm first and foremost telling a story with my players. Story that out of necessity involves system because we are playing a game, but with regards to how I present the world I want the system to be as innocuous as possible. I want the focus to be the setting, the immediate surroundings, and the story that flows through both of those. So when my players are rooting around in the cellar of a tower and one of them pours water onto the floor (to borrow our earlier example) I don't want it in the players minds that if they score the needed 15 suddenly treasure "appears". I want them to be excited that they discovered something that might possibly have a treasure hidden in a poorly sealed floorboard with a space beneath it. I don't often use random wandering monsters. I do when having one will add to the story I'm telling, but I don't announce to the party that I'm now rolling one of the two wandering monster checks the game calls for every day in the jungle. It just happens, like it would if you were living the story in the heat of the jungle where visibility is poor and the heat of the day is causing sweat to blur your vision. Is there an understanding that there is a system underneath it all, sure, but I want that meta to be as seamless and invisible as possible. In my games, I aim for suspension of disbelief. Verisimilitude.
> 
> You are right when you say that this isn't for everyone. I've played in groups before where the game was really just a tabletop wargame, and they loved it. I was bored out of my mind and never returned, but that didn't mean those guys played wrong. A good DM knows his players and provides a game that they will most enjoy, and vice versa.



I showed up at  a HERO game once where they started at the police chief briefing the heroes outside the scene of the crime of the week, got the 411 then headed into the fight with the villains. When I asked naively about all that other stuff, they told me they used to roleplay, putting you in your secret I'd when the alarm went out but had figured out that roleplay of you getting away from Harry White and over to the CSOTW took too much time. It was a fun wargames session but I told them after it was not one I could attend regularly.

But, in practice my style does not make anything like that. The reverse in fact.

My style merges story and mechanics - choices to outcomes to drams.

The player who chose search skills and scores as a focus will tend to hit those high marks more often and will then see key bits coming out of that. They will find those dirty frozen keys to their character from the exceptional things they do. So, your elven scout will get a pouch of coins from his search or a stash of gems in a tree (that likely tie to stories cuz gems dont grow on trees)  and as an extra bit now and again  as he sees that the pouch or box has ties back to his race, his hometown, his order etc. The highly astute social bard will also find most of his high spots in social come from exceptional results in his performances or his carousing. Maybe one of the coins in his hat at the end of the day has very special meaning to him. 

So the net result is that this draws ties between the abilities the player chose to make his character good at and the stories that tie into that character personally. They arent absolute rock hard chains, but just strong influences. 

We tend to find that that marriage between the stuff they make their character good at and the ways their personal treasures/stories get brought in makes both more meaningful to the players and the story. 

But again, not for everyone.


----------



## twofalls (Mar 29, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Well asking someone why anyone would even show up to their games seems a bit dismissive of their gaming style.
> 
> I have z feeling had I said it folks would be lining up to tell me I am being rude.
> 
> But then it's a thing rounds here anyway.




Well the apology is genuine. I have no axes to grind here.


----------



## Satyrn (Mar 30, 2019)

DM Dave1 said:


> That makes complete sense.  In my "defense", the treasure wasn't fully invented.  There was another chest elsewhere (DMs Guild adventure) that simply was not going to be found in the time that we had left so I played the "quantum treasure" card.  And now to incriminate myself, it was not at all the same chest as in the published adventure so I guess in the end, yep, guilty as charged.  Not sure if that kind of improv is inherently bad - I mean sometimes (lots of times?) players go off the figurative or literal path and the DM doesn't want to just say "nuthin' happens" every time.  Maybe the good middle ground is to have a really random table at the ready so it's not seen as pure DM whim (although the players in my game still don't know what I did).  On the other hand, I can see how it could be abused both by a DM and by players who know that is the DM's schtick.  Anyway, thanks for getting me to cogitate on that one!  Always more to learn about the craft...




Of course it's not inherently bad, and as you suggest, you really don't need to defend yourself.  It's just another style. It's even the way I played most of 3e and 4e, and the only reason I'm not applying it in my current game is because I was hankering for an old school dungeon crawl where the players' primary goal is to beat it. It seemed to me that to make that work best, the dungeon had to be a preprepped entity. And I must be right (I certainly wasn't wrong) because I've found the prep work highly satisfying and it's been sheer joy to DM at the table.

Some of the issues/problems people talk about on this forum have simply vanished for me. For example, I'm sure you've seen all the talk about the adventuring day and it's complications about presenting enough encounters, how players "going nova" can affect that, etc. With the megadungeon, I just don't care what the players do. Sure, if they stop after every fight to rest, they just face more wandering monsters and their progress through the dungeon stalls. But if that's the way they choose to pay, that's the way they choose to play. The "adventuring day" is up to them. As is the challenge level. When they're finding the adveuring day is too easy (or too hard), that's on them to fix. It's an easy fix, too: they just have to delve deeper (or retreat).

I also don't care about the balance of skills, or how much use the players get out of them. Like (pulling a random example out of a hat) I don't make any effort to make sure there's an encounter where animal handing can shine. I don't think about solutions to an encounter at all. When I place a Grimtooth Trap, my notes describe how it functions, and don't address how to beat it at all. This way, I keep from locking myself into thinking there's a right way to beat the trap. So when a player decides to "remotely trigger" it by luring a skag into its clutches, I'm completely open to letting that work, and suddenly Animal Handling shines as the star because the player found a way to make it shine.



. . . and ever since I adopted this style I now regularly see - and notice! - disparaging comments here.  Y'all probably have seen them too, phrases like "exploring the DM's notes" and the notorious "Mother May I." But wait. It gets worse for me. Because I also play and enjoy other, conflicting, styles I get to notice all the disparaging comments directed at those. Phrases like "saying the magic word." It's tiring.


----------



## Maxperson (Mar 31, 2019)

dave2008 said:


> Not sure what your looking for, but we have had a lot of success using the alternate rules in the DMG that decouple skills from a specific ability score.  We have also expanded skills to include backgrounds.  *So if you have the "Noble" background you can make an ability check w/ proficiency for anything that relates to being a noble, even if it goes beyond the skills provided by the background.*
> 
> EDIT:  the emphasis with this approach is the player has to describe what their doing and how their skill or background helps them.  The DM then decides if they get proficiency and what ability score to check.




I really like this idea and I think I'm going to use it.  Thanks!!


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 1, 2019)

Has anyone brought up the fact that in the current edition, skill modifiers usually don't matter? A 1st level weakling with no athletics proficiency will get the same result on a hard climb as the level 20 max-strength barbarian 45% of the time. Would it matter if the proficiency involved is 'climbing' instead of 'athletics' when the numbers mean so little?


----------



## The Crimson Binome (Apr 1, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> Has anyone brought up the fact that in the current edition, skill modifiers usually don't matter? A 1st level weakling with no athletics proficiency will get the same result on a hard climb as the level 20 max-strength barbarian 45% of the time. Would it matter if the proficiency involved is 'climbing' instead of 'athletics' when the numbers mean so little?



That's an idea. If you narrowed the focus of each skill, and increased the benefit of proficiency, then it could add depth to characters without trivializing skill checks (as might happen if you only increased the bonus, but didn't narrow their focus).

Personally, I would increase the proficiency bonus for skills by +4 across the board, and not narrow their focus at all, but also increase skill check DCs by +5. I don't particularly care about making the skill system any more complicated, though.


----------



## 5ekyu (Apr 1, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> Has anyone brought up the fact that in the current edition, skill modifiers usually don't matter? A 1st level weakling with no athletics proficiency will get the same result on a hard climb as the level 20 max-strength barbarian 45% of the time. Would it matter if the proficiency involved is 'climbing' instead of 'athletics' when the numbers mean so little?



Of course in your example it's not true but your math seems way off.

Barb 20 has Indom Might so their minimum score is 20. They auto-succeed on Hard climb at DC 20. (Not surprising, level 20 is not usually supposed to be worrying about a tough climb challenge. Thsts morevtier-1 and maybe early tier-2 "challenge" fodder.)

Weakling (below avg str) cannot succeed, cannot get to a 20 with strength 9 or less.

So, for your cherry picked example the proficiency does not matter cuz the characters specific stats and chosen DC make it automatic. If the weakling did have proficiency, then they would meet the DC only 10% of the time. So, not much of a thing.

But in general, in play, proficiencies have a big impact on play, if the GM has challenges that call them into need. This is even more true if the GM uses the DMG ability score rule where having proficiency means you can auto pass easy (DC 10 or less) checks if you do not have disad on that check.

If one finds proficiencies to be usually not mattering, that seems more a difference in GM and player expectations than a rules issue.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 5, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> Of course in your example it's not true but your math seems way off.
> 
> Barb 20 has Indom Might so their minimum score is 20. They auto-succeed on Hard climb at DC 20. (Not surprising, level 20 is not usually supposed to be worrying about a tough climb challenge. Thsts morevtier-1 and maybe early tier-2 "challenge" fodder.)
> 
> ...



Yeah, I made a couple of mistakes. First up I had a moderate DC in mid, secondly I forgot about indomitable might.

Take a DC 15 and anyone who doesn't have "you succeed at your check" baked into their class (like a level 17 barbarian). Suddenly both of them fail on a 1-3, both pass on a 16+ and you can only see the poor climber fail when the good climber succeeds 60% of the time. At a DC 20, that still applies - the poor climber never passes, but the good climber only succeeds 60% of the time.


> But in general, in play, proficiencies have a big impact on play, if the GM has challenges that call them into need. This is even more true if the GM uses the DMG ability score rule where having proficiency means you can auto pass easy (DC 10 or less) checks if you do not have disad on that check.



That just narrows the range where proficiency numbers matter, and makes the system less consistent.


----------



## Nebulous (May 3, 2019)

I didn't read this entire thread so forgive me if I rehash something already stated.  I also as DM have problems with the D&D skill system.  To me, the d20 roll seems vastly more important than what a player is actually good at.  A raging barbarian with a 20 Strength can fail to batter down a locked DC15 door, while his companion wizard with a -4 Strength, in a wheelchair, can roll a 20 and bulldoze an equally locked door.  That's an extreme example but I see it happen in many ways all the time; the PCs just try to roll high, irrelevant if they are particularly good at something, and then all try to roll high at the same time, such as 5 Insight checks to see if someone is lying. But this is so baked into the rules that I wouldn't really know how to address it.  I would prefer if skill were more important than luck I suppose.   Of course the combat system is the same deal, but that doesn't bother me as much. 

I'm inclined to often just let the PCs auto-succeed at Searching and whatnot unless I know something is deliberately hidden and supposed to be hard to find.  If they kill a guard and want to loot his body, no need to roll a search check, you just grab a handful of coins.


----------



## iserith (May 3, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> I'm inclined to often just let the PCs auto-succeed at Searching and whatnot unless I know something is deliberately hidden and supposed to be hard to find.  If they kill a guard and want to loot his body, no need to roll a search check, you just grab a handful of coins.




Your conclusions are supported by the rules. The DM is the only one who can call for checks anyway (not the players) and he or she does that only if the outcome of the task described by the player has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If one or both of those elements are not in place, there is no roll - the task succeeds or fails and is narrated by the DM accordingly.


----------



## robus (May 3, 2019)

[MENTION=31465]Nebulous[/MENTION], you might find the Angry GM's latest piece helpful too: https://theangrygm.com/being-in-flex-able/ (along with Iserith's Adjudicating Actions guide in "Best of" thread.)

Basically if you find that the game results are ridiculous you're feeding the wrong inputs into the rules. If the Barbarian fails at a strength check don't allow another PC to "have a go", the dice will inevitably roll a suitably high number to make the outcome questionable. A different PC demands a different approach or something else in the situation to change to make the additional roll (if needed) relevant.


----------



## Nebulous (May 3, 2019)

iserith said:


> Your conclusions are supported by the rules. The DM is the only one who can call for checks anyway (not the players) and he or she does that only if the outcome of the task described by the player has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If one or both of those elements are not in place, there is no roll - the task succeeds or fails and is narrated by the DM accordingly.




I think we regularly flub this then.  Usually a player enters a room and says, "I'm make a perception check." or "I'm going to check the door for traps." and rolls.  "Or, "I don't know what this monster is, I'll make a Nature/Arcana check to learn about it"  (hoping of course, in all cases, for a nat 20).

Could you tell me expressly where the rules state that the DM calls for the checks, not the players?


----------



## robus (May 3, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Could you tell me expressly where the rules state that the DM calls for the checks, not the players?




On Page 4 of the basic rules:



> How to Play
> The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.
> 
> 1. The DM describes the environment. The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what’s around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves (how many doors lead out of a room, what’s on a table, who’s in the tavern, and so on).
> ...




The player is supposed to describe their action in natural language. The DM adjudicates the action calling for a ability check if there's uncertainty (and a meaningful cost to failure).

Edit: added some bold for clarity


----------



## Nebulous (May 3, 2019)

robus said:


> [MENTION=31465]Nebulous[/MENTION], you might find the Angry GM's latest piece helpful too: https://theangrygm.com/being-in-flex-able/ (along with Iserith's Adjudicating Actions guide in "Best of" thread.)
> 
> Basically if you find that the game results are ridiculous you're feeding the wrong inputs into the rules. If the Barbarian fails at a strength check don't allow another PC to "have a go", the dice will inevitably roll a suitably high number to make the outcome questionable. A different PC demands a different approach or something else in the situation to change to make the additional roll (if needed) relevant.




Thanks, I'll check that out.  But what would be the in-game reasoning to not let multiple people try the same thing, such as bashing down a door?  It would be easier if D&D had more built in autosuccess rules; if you have such and such stat you just DO that thing.  It seems like common sense but for some reason myself and my players have gotten into the habit of rolling too much and relying on chance.  I'd really like to move away from that.


----------



## Sabathius42 (May 3, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> Has anyone brought up the fact that in the current edition, skill modifiers usually don't matter? A 1st level weakling with no athletics proficiency will get the same result on a hard climb as the level 20 max-strength barbarian 45% of the time. Would it matter if the proficiency involved is 'climbing' instead of 'athletics' when the numbers mean so little?




If you, Saeviomagy, were somehow teleported into your D&D game (Tron style) and directly onto the side of a cliff you were in the middle of free climbing and had to choose a body for the ascent would you choose....

A) 1st level weakling with no Athletics Proficiency
B) 20th level max-STR barbarian

Obviously B, because you would have a way less chance of falling to your death.

DS


----------



## Satyrn (May 3, 2019)

robus said:


> On Page 4 of the basic rules:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And page 237 of the DMG is where the section called Using Ability Scores begins. It begins







> When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. For example, a character doesn't normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
> 
> When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions . . .


----------



## iserith (May 3, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> I think we regularly flub this then.  Usually a player enters a room and says, "I'm make a perception check." or "I'm going to check the door for traps." and rolls.  "Or, "I don't know what this monster is, I'll make a Nature/Arcana check to learn about it"  (hoping of course, in all cases, for a nat 20).




That's a common way of playing and, for many, it works just fine. But it can lead to dissatisfaction with D&D 5e as a result since it is at odds with the game's design and you end up with the situations you describe. When someone isn't happy with the system, it's almost always this issue in my experience, being a fundamental process of play. It's basically playing this game as if it's some other game.



Nebulous said:


> Could you tell me expressly where the rules state that the DM calls for the checks, not the players?




See the section on "How to Play" in the introduction of the PHB, plus the section entitled "Ability Checks" in PHB Chapter 7. The DM always calls for the ability check. The player can ask which skill proficiency applies to the ability check, but that's it. See also the DMG, page 237, "Using Ability Scores" and pages 236-237 "The Middle Path."

The idea here is you want your players to describe what they want to do which necessarily includes what they hope to accomplish (goal) and what they do in order to accomplish it (approach). Reasonable specificity is required, but don't fall into the trap of confusing this with being overly verbose or necessitating flowery language or acting chops.

This description by the player will help you to decide whether the outcome is uncertain and, given the situation, whether there's a meaningful consequence for failure. If you decide that both of those things are true, then the approach to the goal will inform you as to what ability score applies, possibly what skill proficiency, what difficulty it is (DC), and whether advantage or disadvantage is appropriate. Without the goal and approach being described by the players, the DM is left with little information with which to adjudicate and many DMs just assume what it is they are doing, often describing what the character is doing for the player. But that's the player's role in the game, not the DM's.


----------



## robus (May 3, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Thanks, I'll check that out.  But what would be the in-game reasoning to not let multiple people try the same thing, such as bashing down a door?  It would be easier if D&D had more built in autosuccess rules; if you have such and such stat you just DO that thing.  It seems like common sense but for some reason myself and my players have gotten into the habit of rolling too much and relying on chance.  I'd really like to move away from that.




5e relies on the DM to use their brains first rules second  In this situation the DM decided that there was a chance the barbarian might not be able to bash down the door, and, importantly, if they failed there would be some consequence (monsters alerted, enemies escape, etc). The player proceeds to roll dice to see if their character can do the necessary. If they succeed great, if they fail the consequences occur and I would narrate that they actually succeed but it takes a few strikes and makes a hell of a racket, alerting anything in the vicinity.

The situation has now changed and there is no need/point for another character to have a go at the same task. That’s the key thing. The result of the dice roll *must* change the situation.


----------



## Nebulous (May 3, 2019)

iserith said:


> That's a common way of playing and, for many, it works just fine. But it can lead to dissatisfaction with D&D 5e as a result since it is at odds with the game's design and you end up with the situations you describe. When someone isn't happy with the system, it's almost always this issue in my experience, being a fundamental process of play. It's basically playing this game as if it's some other game.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think I definitely need to start enforcing this with my players more and "unlearning" some of the habits we have developed. That might go a long ways toward making me like the skill system more.  I do think it gets abused too much or used in ways that are much broader than what they were intended. 

They rarely, if ever, actually describe their actions. It falls on the dice roll to "be" their action, which is dull.


----------



## Satyrn (May 3, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> I think I definitely need to start enforcing this with my players more and "unlearning" some of the habits we have developed. That might go a long ways toward making me like the skill system more.  I do think it gets abused too much or used in ways that are much broader than what they were intended.
> 
> They rarely, if ever, actually describe their actions. It falls on the dice roll to "be" their action, which is dull.




I figure that part of that comes from the player wanting to make sure that he gets to use the skill that he intends. I know I get a little irritated when I describe an action that I figure it's animal handing, but results in my DM choosing a different skill. ( The easy solution to that is for the DM to call for the ability score check and let the player choose - or at least request - a suitable skill)


----------



## Nebulous (May 3, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> I figure that part of that comes from the player wanting to make sure that he gets to use the skill that he intends. I know I get a little irritated when I describe an action that I figure it's animal handing, but results in my DM choosing a different skill. ( The easy solution to that is for the DM to call for the ability score check and let the player choose - or at least request - a suitable skill)




Right, and the Angry GM says so in that article, in the case of Animal Handling you would add your proficiency bonus if the player says I have Animal Handling, can I use that?


----------



## Satyrn (May 3, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Right, and the Angry GM says so in that article, in the case of Animal Handling you would add your proficiency bonus if the player says I have Animal Handling, can I use that?




Nice! (I didn't read the article.)

I do prefer that the player doesn't bother asking if he can use animal handing, but rather state that he is doing so. Like:

Player: I do my best Crocodile Dundee impersonation on that skag, so it doesn't alert the rest of the pack.
DM: okay, give me a Charisma check, DC 15.
Player: I'm using my Animal Handing on that, by the way *rolls*
 . . . etc . . .


(Of course this example fails if you're wondering how the DM wouldn't know the player intended to use animal handing; just pretend the example is one where that isn't so obvious. It's not the details that I'm trying to illustrate, but the form)


----------



## robus (May 3, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Right, and the Angry GM says so in that article, in the case of Animal Handling you would add your proficiency bonus if the player says I have Animal Handling, can I use that?




The article was quite enlightening as usual, damn him...


----------



## robus (May 3, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> Nice! (I didn't read the article.)
> 
> I do prefer that the player doesn't bother asking if he can use animal handing




I'm glad that works for you, but it would seem a bit presumptuous to me - especially when it gets into the grey areas...


----------



## robus (May 3, 2019)

Based on the Angry article I had a go at revising the character sheet to promote the ability scores and demote the skill & saving throw proficiencies. I quite like the result:


----------



## BookBarbarian (May 3, 2019)

robus said:


> Based on the Angry article I had a go at revising the character sheet to promote the ability scores and demote the skill & saving throw proficiencies. I quite like the result:
> 
> View attachment 106218




A while back on the DMsGuild WotC released a bunch of premade characters who's 'sheets' looked more like NPC statblocks.

I liked how simple it looked.


----------



## robus (May 3, 2019)

BookBarbarian said:


> A while back on the DMsGuild WotC released a bunch of premade characters who's 'sheets' looked more like NPC statblocks.
> 
> I liked how simple it looked.




Yeah, but it is quite dense though. Fine for an experienced player, but difficult to grok for a newbie I'd imagine?


----------



## BookBarbarian (May 3, 2019)

robus said:


> Yeah, but it is quite dense though. Fine for an experienced player, but difficult to grok for a newbie I'd imagine?




Easy enough to use if handed to them. 

Super difficult to do heavy modification to, for new items or abilities and such.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 3, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Thanks, I'll check that out.  But what would be the in-game reasoning to not let multiple people try the same thing, such as bashing down a door?




I think the concept comes down to "if the best person can't do it...there's probably something to it".

When the barbarian rolls a 5 on the strength check to break down a door, you don't treat it as "man the barbarian almost fell on his face when attempting to break down the door".

Instead its "this door is basically welded shut, and is impossible to budge".


----------



## iserith (May 3, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Right, and the Angry GM says so in that article, in the case of Animal Handling you would add your proficiency bonus if the player says I have Animal Handling, can I use that?




I find the easiest thing to do and the least prone to a mismatch in expectations is that the DM calls for the ability check and the player adds the skill proficiency that he or she thinks best aligns with his or her description of what the character is doing. This also means the DM need only work about 6 things (the ability scores) rather than all of the skill proficiencies. This method assumes that there's trust at the table and the players are playing in good faith, describing what they want to do and applying the appropriate skill proficiency to that effort as they see it.


----------



## robus (May 3, 2019)

iserith said:


> I find the easiest thing to do and the least prone to a mismatch in expectations is that the DM calls for the ability check and the player adds the skill proficiency that he or she thinks best aligns with his or her description of what the character is doing. This also means the DM need only work about 6 things (the ability scores) rather than all of the skill proficiencies. This method assumes that there's trust at the table and the players are playing in good faith, describing what they want to do and applying the appropriate skill proficiency to that effort as they see it.




I pushed back on Satyrn a bit at that idea, but you’re both probably right. If there’s trust then it should be fine, and, of course, if there’s not trust then there are going to much bigger issues than a skill proficiency battle


----------



## DND_Reborn (May 4, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> I think I definitely need to start enforcing this with my players more and "unlearning" some of the habits we have developed. That might go a long ways toward making me like the skill system more.  I do think it gets abused too much or used in ways that are much broader than what they were intended.
> 
> They rarely, if ever, actually describe their actions. It falls on the dice roll to "be" their action, which is dull.




I've been encouraging the other players to narrate their characters actions instead of calling for rolls as well. The DM told me after one session when we discussed it that he'd decided to reward it by doing one of two things.

Suppose the players says, "I'm going to search in the corner behind the chair for a trapdoor or secret passage."
Our DM would either just say "When you moved the chair, one legs pulled on a cord in the floor and triggered the wall to crack open slightly." or if he still felt a rolls was better, would grant advantage on it since the player was specific in his intent and his actions indicate a greater likelihood of success.

I told him it's a great idea to reward good role-playing and game-play both, so maybe it will help your group?


----------



## 5ekyu (May 4, 2019)

Stalker0 said:


> I think the concept comes down to "if the best person can't do it...there's probably something to it".
> 
> When the barbarian rolls a 5 on the strength check to break down a door, you don't treat it as "man the barbarian almost fell on his face when attempting to break down the door".
> 
> Instead its "this door is basically welded shut, and is impossible to budge".



Instead, I represent it as a measure of how favorable the circumstances for that effort were - both in results and the perspective of the charsater. 

So, nah, it's not welded shut, but part of the floor or ground gave wsy unexpectedly, or was slicker than expected, or any number things that seem very appropriate to the scene. Next guy, avoids those, maybe shoes up footing etc. 

Alternatively, the effort dies push in, creating a slight opening, but something structurally goes awry and shifts and the door gets stuck. Now, future checks are at disadvantage but you can see into the next room, possibly teleport, send familiar etc.  (Some progress with setback)

There are a lot of possibilities between the poles often put forth of infinite retries and one roll and that's it.


----------



## DND_Reborn (May 4, 2019)

robus said:


> [MENTION=31465]Nebulous[/MENTION], you might find the Angry GM's latest piece helpful too: https://theangrygm.com/being-in-flex-able/ (along with Iserith's Adjudicating Actions guide in "Best of" thread.)
> 
> Basically if you find that the game results are ridiculous you're feeding the wrong inputs into the rules. If the Barbarian fails at a strength check don't allow another PC to "have a go", the dice will inevitably roll a suitably high number to make the outcome questionable. A different PC demands a different approach or something else in the situation to change to make the additional roll (if needed) relevant.




Actually, after reading his article, I didn't feel like there was much there not already covered in the PHB. Ability scores are "key", skills are added if they apply to the task.


----------



## robus (May 4, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Actually, after reading his article, I didn't feel like there was much there not already covered in the PHB. Ability scores are "key", skills are added if they apply to the task.




And yet there seems to be lots of confusion for some people. Certainly WotC doesn’t encourage that interpretation in their adventures when practically every suggested ability check is qualified with a skill...

The biggest problem WotC has is that while there’s plenty of good and useful information in the core books it is generally presented in such a way as to make that information confusing at best or buried under a bunch of unrelated stuff at worst.


----------



## DND_Reborn (May 4, 2019)

robus said:


> And yet there seems to be lots of confusion for some people. Certainly WotC doesn’t encourage that interpretation in their adventures when practically every suggested ability check is qualified with a skill...
> 
> The biggest problem WotC has is that while there’s plenty of good and useful information in the core books it is generally presented in such a way as to make that information confusing at best or buried under a bunch of unrelated stuff at worst.




I guess I've just never seen any confusion about it, and it surprises me when others seem to say theres "lots of confusion" about it. Although the skill list is hardly exhaustive, most tasks do have a skill that is applicable IMO (forcing open a door or something similar being the most common offender). I think the most useful thing to learn from his article is to be flexible about ability scores and skills, choosing the best combination applicable to the task.

But, I certainly agree that the presentation of the information if very faulty in many parts.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 4, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> Actually, after reading his article, I didn't feel like there was much there not already covered in the PHB. Ability scores are "key", skills are added if they apply to the task.




Of course the AngryDM cannot be wrong, but I do think he underestimates the tenacity of players. So if everytime a player jumps a pit I say "make a strength check" they will inevitably follow up with "can I use my athletics?"

After the 5th time its just easier to say "make an athletics check"....and that is when the slippery slope of ability checks -> skills begins.


----------



## Satyrn (May 4, 2019)

robus said:


> I pushed back on Satyrn a bit at that idea, but you’re both probably right. If there’s trust then it should be fine, and, of course, if there’s not trust then there are going to much bigger issues than a skill proficiency battle




Aye. And even at my table, ultimately there's still the opportunity to veto the decision. 

I find that letting the decision be theirs - but one that I can veto - means when the grey areas pop up, the decision is far more likely to lean toward the player's perspective than if I'm actively deciding yes/no everytime. And hopefully this means the player is confident that things are gonna go the way they imagine when they're describing their action, and that confidence let's them focus on the action itself rather than trying to focus on making sure I choose the skill they're aiming for.


----------



## Nebulous (May 5, 2019)

I have to agree.  While some group do use it easily enough, I have found plenty of confusion, as have my players.


----------



## Nebulous (May 5, 2019)

dnd4vr said:


> I guess I've just never seen any confusion about it, and it surprises me when others seem to say theres "lots of confusion" about it. Although the skill list is hardly exhaustive, most tasks do have a skill that is applicable IMO (forcing open a door or something similar being the most common offender). I think the most useful thing to learn from his article is to be flexible about ability scores and skills, choosing the best combination applicable to the task.
> 
> But, I certainly agree that the presentation of the information if very faulty in many parts.




Yes, I think a lot of it is presentation, maybe being a little too open ended with DM fiat, and lacking enough concrete examples in the book.


----------



## robus (May 5, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Yes, I think a lot of it is presentation, maybe being a little too open ended with DM fiat, and lacking enough concrete examples in the book.




When I read Iserith’s guide to adjudicating actions (if you haven’t you should) it was a revelation and i remember exclaiming at the time that it should be in the DMG’s section on running the game.


----------



## Greenstone.Walker (May 6, 2019)

Stalker0 said:


> After the 5th time its just easier to say "make an athletics check"....and that is when the slippery slope of ability checks -> skills begins.



Well, stop saying "athletics check". 

Seriously, though, if you consistently use the phrase "Strength (Athletics) check", it will help everyone at the table remember what is going on.


----------



## Nebulous (May 6, 2019)

robus said:


> When I read Iserith’s guide to adjudicating actions (if you haven’t you should) it was a revelation and i remember exclaiming at the time that it should be in the DMG’s section on running the game.




Oh, where would I find that?


----------



## Swarmkeeper (May 6, 2019)

Nebulous said:


> Oh, where would I find that?




Here


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 17, 2019)

Sabathius42 said:


> If you, Saeviomagy, were somehow teleported into your D&D game (Tron style) and directly onto the side of a cliff you were in the middle of free climbing and had to choose a body for the ascent would you choose....




Because you have pre-supposed that I'm forced to be climbing, obviously the one with a lesser chance of failure... however the reality is that if free climbing was as dangerous as 5th ed makes it, neither they nor I would have chosen to commence the climb in the first place.


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 17, 2019)

'Tenacious' players can get out of my living room. Any RPG relies on some good faith communication back and forth between the GM and players. If, as the GM, I set expectations about how to approach stating and adjudicating actions and a player is willfully and continually ignoring those instructions and expectations then he's going to find another game. GMs need to remember that they set the expectations for game play, not the players. Ideally the conversation about how things were going to work would have been handled in session zero so that misunderstandings were few and far between, and everyone got to say their piece, but if things have deteriorated or gotten out of hand it's on the GM to may down the expectations and the players to do their best to comply.


----------



## GMMichael (May 18, 2019)

Sabathius42 said:


> you were in the middle of free climbing and had to choose a body for the ascent would you choose....
> 
> A) 1st level weakling with no Athletics Proficiency
> B) 20th level max-STR barbarian
> ...



My copy of the PHB says that a failure means you make no progress or you make progress with a setback.  That's hardly "falling to your death."



Saeviomagy said:


> the reality is that if free climbing was as dangerous as 5th ed makes it, neither they nor I would have chosen to commence the climb in the first place.



You are now safe to resume climbing, Saev.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 20, 2019)

DMMike said:


> My copy of the PHB says that a failure means you make no progress or you make progress with a setback.  That's hardly "falling to your death."



So it's now not actually possible to fall while climbing, is that what you're saying? That doesn't seem satisfactory either!


----------



## GMMichael (May 20, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> So it's now not actually possible to fall while climbing, is that what you're saying? That doesn't seem satisfactory either!



Good question.  I suppose that the answer is that falling is one interpretation of "no progress."  I don't think that free-climbing is a very good example though, because who looks at a climb-or-die cliff and says "hmm, the only solution must be to start climbing!"

For what it's worth: in _the Princess Bride_, the Dread Pirate Roberts gets stuck on a climb-or-die cliff face.  He doesn't fall, but he loses a LOT of distance between himself and Buttercup.  I'd say he failed his climb roll, there.


----------



## aco175 (May 20, 2019)

I tend to use the old methods I have seen where if you fail by 5 or more you have a problem, like falling.  If you fail by less than 5 you make no progress or suffer a problem making other checks more difficult.  For climbing I may have a DC of 15 and if someone fails by rolling a 8 they may fall, but I allow a Dex or Str check to grab something on the way down and only take 1d6 damage.  If you fail a lot of checks you may have problems, but generally you get a couple checks to not fail completely.  I may even have some monsters come if you keep not making progress.  I had skeletons climbing behind the PCs once and they needed to assist the others.  I think the thief was using his bonus action to grant advantage to the mages climb check by setting pins in the wall.  This also made the skeletons have advantage until the thief went to take them out.


----------



## iserith (May 20, 2019)

aco175 said:


> I tend to use the old methods I have seen where if you fail by 5 or more you have a problem, like falling.  If you fail by less than 5 you make no progress or suffer a problem making other checks more difficult.  For climbing I may have a DC of 15 and if someone fails by rolling a 8 they may fall, but I allow a Dex or Str check to grab something on the way down and only take 1d6 damage.  If you fail a lot of checks you may have problems, but generally you get a couple checks to not fail completely.  I may even have some monsters come if you keep not making progress.  I had skeletons climbing behind the PCs once and they needed to assist the others.  I think the thief was using his bonus action to grant advantage to the mages climb check by setting pins in the wall.  This also made the skeletons have advantage until the thief went to take them out.




This is supported by the "Degrees of Failure" rules in the DMG, page 242. What is old is new again!


----------



## 5ekyu (May 21, 2019)

DMMike said:


> Good question.  I suppose that the answer is that falling is one interpretation of "no progress."  I don't think that free-climbing is a very good example though, because who looks at a climb-or-die cliff and says "hmm, the only solution must be to start climbing!"
> 
> For what it's worth: in _the Princess Bride_, the Dread Pirate Roberts gets stuck on a climb-or-die cliff face.  He doesn't fall, but he loses a LOT of distance between himself and Buttercup.  I'd say he failed his climb roll, there.



Yup, "you make it a bit farther but then..." some degree of problems arise. I tend to go with a few escalating style problems before I get to free fall. Slip down a distance, drop gear, get to bad spot with disadvantage to continue or you can backtrack to new line, etc. 

Things like free falling I tend to hold back until they have disadvantage and then continue anyway. I have tended to show early on to my players that disadvantaged checks is asking for not just failure but bad to worst setbacks and outcomes too.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 22, 2019)

iserith said:


> This is supported by the "Degrees of Failure" rules in the DMG, page 242. What is old is new again!



Right... and in this case, our max-level, max-strength, trained in climbing  figher (edit - argh, barbarian succeeds automatically!) can feel confident that he can attempt a moderate climb and not risk death! Effectively reducing DCs by 5 feels better than where DCs are currently, because it brings results into the 'cannot possibly fail' region more often, but it's still an across the board change that requires the DM to do a lot more than is written into typical skill checks, and will still often be invisible.


----------



## GreyLord (May 22, 2019)

The Climb would also depend on how hard it is to scale that particular cliff.

Perhaps a portion of the cliff would be relatively easy for a climber so the DC is 5.

Then a portion is still relatively easy for a climber so that would have a roll of a DC 10.  This means that max level max STR barbarian would still basically not even need to roll if we hold it in that fashion.

Then a DC 15 would be something that was particularly challenging...and a DC20 is the one that no reasonable free climber would actually risk as it's too risky.


----------



## iserith (May 22, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> Right... and in this case, our max-level, max-strength, trained in climbing barbarian can feel confident that he can attempt a moderate climb and not risk death! Effectively reducing DCs by 5 feels better than where DCs are currently, because it brings results into the 'cannot possibly fail' region more often, but it's still an across the board change that requires the DM to do a lot more than is written into typical skill checks, and will still often be invisible.




Well, the good news is that climbing in D&D 5e is a factor of speed and ability checks are only necessary if there's something about the climb that makes it uncertain, such as a slippery vertical surface or few handholds.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 27, 2019)

iserith said:


> Well, the good news is that climbing in D&D 5e is a factor of speed and ability checks are only necessary if there's something about the climb that makes it uncertain, such as a slippery vertical surface or few handholds.




Don't those things factor into the DC, not into whether or not a roll is necessary? We already decided this is a moderate climb, not a beginner one. We already decided the penalty for failure is something nasty, simply because you're climbing the side of a mountain. But now we need another, different evaluation of the climb difficulty to determine whether it's possible to fail or not... and if we decide it's not difficult, then it's fine for the worst climber in the world to attempt the moderate climb with fatal consequences, because he never actually needs to roll...


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 27, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> Right... and in this case, our max-level, max-strength, trained in climbing  figher (edit - argh, barbarian succeeds automatically!) can feel confident that he can attempt a moderate climb and not risk death! Effectively reducing DCs by 5 feels better than where DCs are currently, because it brings results into the 'cannot possibly fail' region more often.



"Cannot possibly fail" is also known as DM Narrates Success, and it's not slaved to bonuses or DCs - in fact, it precedes the determination of the DC by the DM.

There's no need to tweak rules to get there more often, just narrate success more often.  As DM, you are /Empowered/ to do so!


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 27, 2019)

Yeah, if you look at something as a GM and you think "there's no way he should muff this" then there's no rolling necessary. You only need to roll and adjudicate if there's a possibility of and consequence for failure.


----------



## iserith (May 27, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> Don't those things factor into the DC, not into whether or not a roll is necessary? We already decided this is a moderate climb, not a beginner one. We already decided the penalty for failure is something nasty, simply because you're climbing the side of a mountain. But now we need another, different evaluation of the climb difficulty to determine whether it's possible to fail or not... and if we decide it's not difficult, then it's fine for the worst climber in the world to attempt the moderate climb with fatal consequences, because he never actually needs to roll...




That's the basic adjudication process though. First the DM decides if a roll is necessary at all. Climbing is called out specifically as being just movement except in certain circumstances.

A DC can only be set once the task is established by the player in a reasonably specific way such that the DM can decide if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. Climbing in particular just costs 2 feet of movement for every 1 foot of progress, no check necessary, unless there's something complicating things e.g. slippery vertical surface, few handholds, the need to avoid specific hazards, or trying to avoid being knocked off by something.

The DM has two basic options for narrating failure - no progress toward the objective or progress combined with a setback. Plus there are some other options in the DMG - success at a cost (fail by 1 or 2 is success with complication or hindrance), degrees of failure like something bad happening only if you fail by 5 or more, and critical failure (some extra bad result on a 1).


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 28, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> There's no need to tweak rules to get there more often, just narrate success more often.  As DM, you are /Empowered/ to do so!





iserith said:


> That's the basic adjudication process though. First the DM decides if a roll is necessary at all. Climbing is called out specifically as being just movement except in certain circumstances.



Since we're already talking about using the skill system, lets assume that there is some doubt about success here. After all, it's pretty trivial to describe obstacles and then describe characters overcoming them with ease. Doesn't sound much fun though...


> A DC can only be set once the task is established by the player in a reasonably specific way such that the DM can decide if there's an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. Climbing in particular just costs 2 feet of movement for every 1 foot of progress, no check necessary, unless there's something complicating things e.g. slippery vertical surface, few handholds, the need to avoid specific hazards, or trying to avoid being knocked off by something.



First up, this is rubbish. It's not how any published adventure works, nor does it make a lot of sense: you don't assign a different DC to each character who wants to climb a wall based on how you, the DM, feel about their chances. And if you have to... that's a problem. At that point I may as well scrap the entire skill system because it's making my job more difficult, not easier.


> The DM has two basic options for narrating failure - no progress toward the objective or progress combined with a setback. Plus there are some other options in the DMG - success at a cost (fail by 1 or 2 is success with complication or hindrance), degrees of failure like something bad happening only if you fail by 5 or more, and critical failure (some extra bad result on a 1).



I already addressed the concept of a world of adventure (or even mundanity) where performing a dangerous climb has zero chance of injury to those woefully incompetent in the field of rock climbing. It's a ridiculous concept. There's a reason why even experts don't go rock climbing alone with no safety gear.

I covered the degree of failure thing too - it's equivalent to lowering DCs across the board. It's better, but you still don't see a lot of difference between the worst of the worst and people-with-high-modifiers-but-no-class-abilities-that-guarantee-success (I'm happy excluding those who do have auto-success class abilities, because they're not really using the skill system any more).


----------



## iserith (May 28, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> First up, this is rubbish. It's not how any published adventure works, nor does it make a lot of sense: you don't assign a different DC to each character who wants to climb a wall based on how you, the DM, feel about their chances.




Sure you do, if one character climbs the wall in a way that is meaningfully different than someone else, then the DC can vary. If the approach to climbing is largely the same, then it is reasonable to assign the same DC.



Saeviomagy said:


> And if you have to... that's a problem. At that point I may as well scrap the entire skill system because it's making my job more difficult, not easier.




It's the role of the DM as described by the game to judge these matters.



Saeviomagy said:


> I already addressed the concept of a world of adventure (or even mundanity) where performing a dangerous climb has zero chance of injury to those woefully incompetent in the field of rock climbing. It's a ridiculous concept. There's a reason why even experts don't go rock climbing alone with no safety gear.
> 
> I covered the degree of failure thing too - it's equivalent to lowering DCs across the board. It's better, but you still don't see a lot of difference between the worst of the worst and people-with-high-modifiers-but-no-class-abilities-that-guarantee-success (I'm happy excluding those who do have auto-success class abilities, because they're not really using the skill system any more).




It's a good thing the game isn't even a simulation of a world of sword and sorcery let alone the real world. What we have our mechanics to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of a task in moments where the consequence for failure is meaningful. That requires some judgment on the part of the DM as to whether and when to call for ability checks and to select one of several failure options to narrate the result of the adventurers' actions (if they fail).


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 28, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> Since we're already talking about using the skill system, lets assume that there is some doubt about success here...



 "Automatic success" is when there isn't, though, and that's determined before DCs are set.  If the DM calls for a check, but sets a DC the character can't fail, the /DM has failed/ and DMs should avoid the appearance of fallibility as much as possible, it undermines the level of trust needed from the players.



> First up, this is rubbish. It's not how any published adventure works



 A published adventure is a tool to help the DM along, setting DCs for him is an exception to the usual mode of play, but the DM needn't abide by it, it's there to aid, not constrain. 







> nor does it make a lot of sense: you don't assign a different DC to each character who wants to climb a wall based on how you, the DM, feel about their chances. And if you have to... that's a problem. At that point I may as well scrap the entire skill system because it's making my job more difficult, not easier.



 Why wouldn't you?  A climb might be harder for character than another, irrespective of attribute or training for other reasons - hand-holds might be spaced for a human, but too far apart for a halfling, for instance - or conversely may bear the weight of a halfling easily, but not a human. Training can imply long familiarity, which might make a task trivial (no check), while without training it's still a challenge (roll vs DC). 



> I covered the degree of failure thing too - it's equivalent to lowering DCs across the board.



 It's also just part of narrating failure, and doesn't need numbers attached.  The DM can narrate a failure as falling further behind someone you're climbing after, or literally falling off the cliffs of insanity...
… a nice one will even make it clear which is at stake... 


> It's better, but you still don't see a lot of difference between the worst of the worst and people-with-high-modifiers-but-no-class-abilities-that-guarantee-success



That's BA, it's an intentional design feature.  The DM can inject a greater difference by narrating success for the high-bonus characters more often, or narrating failure for the worst of the worst more often, or both.  He can also narrate success/failure for them differently.  When the incompetent fails, he fails hard and comically from his own ineptitude, when the expert fails, it's a fluke and he recovers quickly.

You're expecting too much from the "system" (there isn't really even a 'skill system' in the sense there was in 3.x or RQII or the like, there's the basic d20 mechanic, and proficiency), and not enough from the DM.


----------



## Saeviomagy (May 30, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> "Automatic success" is when there isn't, though, and that's determined before DCs are set.  If the DM calls for a check, but sets a DC the character can't fail, the /DM has failed/ and DMs should avoid the appearance of fallibility as much as possible, it undermines the level of trust needed from the players.



So now the skill system requires me to know every skill number on every player's sheet or I'll be labelled a failure?


> Why wouldn't you?  A climb might be harder for character than another, irrespective of attribute or training for other reasons - hand-holds might be spaced for a human, but too far apart for a halfling, for instance - or conversely may bear the weight of a halfling easily, but not a human. Training can imply long familiarity, which might make a task trivial (no check), while without training it's still a challenge (roll vs DC).



Then why are we even bothering with numbers? This is about dissatisfaction with the skill system, and this is pretty representative of a skill system that just doesn't work - you have to make up the numbers for each player on a case by case basis, and the only influence the actual system has is now I ALSO have to be wary that my arbitrary numbers don't fall into the automatic success or failure cases of each character.


> It's also just part of narrating failure, and doesn't need numbers attached.  The DM can narrate a failure as falling further behind someone you're climbing after, or literally falling off the cliffs of insanity...
> … a nice one will even make it clear which is at stake...



Yes, I'm perfectly well aware of how a DM can decide the price of failure. Again - I can just do that. The skill system doesn't help me in the slightest.


> That's BA, it's an intentional design feature.  The DM can inject a greater difference by narrating success for the high-bonus characters more often, or narrating failure for the worst of the worst more often, or both.  He can also narrate success/failure for them differently.  When the incompetent fails, he fails hard and comically from his own ineptitude, when the expert fails, it's a fluke and he recovers quickly.



Design features can be wrong, so stating that doesn't make any ground for your argument. Whether or not someone intended the skill system to be a step worse than just making things up based on how you feel about a character doesn't change whether or not that was the result.


> You're expecting too much from the "system" (there isn't really even a 'skill system' in the sense there was in 3.x or RQII or the like, there's the basic d20 mechanic, and proficiency), and not enough from the DM.



Because what's expected from the DM is "everything that you would have to do if there was literally no skill system at all, but now you also have to know character's stats to avoid getting the numbers wrong, and the players have probably read the skill system and formed expectations from it, so expect an entirely new set of arguments based on how bad those numbers are".

That's why people are dissatisfied. They're not doing the wrong thing - the skill system as presented in 5e is literally worse than nothing.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 30, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> So now the skill system requires me to know every skill number on every player's sheet or I'll be labelled a failure?



 Well, you could have that info behind the screen.  Or ask them when they declare an action.  Besides, at a given level, there should be some 'safe' DCs.




> Then why are we even bothering with numbers? This is about dissatisfaction with the skill system, and this is pretty representative of a skill system that just doesn't work - you have to make up the numbers for each player on a case by case basis, and the only influence the actual system has is now I ALSO have to be wary that my arbitrary numbers don't fall into the automatic success or failure cases of each character.



 Your numbers shouldn't be arbitrary, of course, otherwise you wouldn't be considering each character when setting a DC. And, it's only if you don't settle on success or failure as being the better narrative result that you go to the trouble of check.  As @Morrus; has pointed out, once players are used to it, they'll angle to get narrated success rather than checks, as much as possible.  
So it really just gets easier.



> Because what's expected from the DM is "everything



 Yep. Empowerment.  

No pay bump, either.  Oh, no wait, what are you being paid now?  Nothing?  We'll DOUBLE it!



OK, sorry, that got too flippant, even for me.
Seriously, though, part of the solution is that what you're considering the skill system is not the whole skill system, the DM judging success/failure is also part of it, can be the larger part.  So the actual numbers and proficiency write-ups can be, by far, the smallest part of resolving player actions, most of it can be just you & your players, having fun.  As long as they trust your judgement.


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 30, 2019)

That is a* lot* of salt. Don't get me wrong, I like a little salt on my rhetoric, I feel like it really brings out the full range of flavours in a post. Not just the dissatisfaction, but the rage and angst too. When you add the long multi quote it smooths out the rough edges on the palate and really pulls the whole post together. When you add too much salt though, especially when mixed with store bought sarcasm, it can really bring the whole thing down.

I've played worse than nothing. 5E ain't it.

Tony beat me to the post. The above was not @_*Tony Vargas*_


----------



## 5ekyu (May 30, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> So now the skill system requires me to know every skill number on every player's sheet or I'll be labelled a failure?
> 
> Then why are we even bothering with numbers? This is about dissatisfaction with the skill system, and this is pretty representative of a skill system that just doesn't work - you have to make up the numbers for each player on a case by case basis, and the only influence the actual system has is now I ALSO have to be wary that my arbitrary numbers don't fall into the automatic success or failure cases of each character.
> 
> ...



"So now the skill system requires me to know every skill number on every player's sheet or I'll be labelled a failure?"

No. It also pretty explicitly contradicts the notion that setting a DC thst turns into auto-success is a failure either. 

In the DMG they have rules on auto-success in the sections about ability checks- in play. 

One of their options includes auto-success for DC 10 or less *for characters who are proficient* in non-disad situations. Obviously that sets up the "you set a dc" along with "it turns out to be no chsnce of failure" as a possible result - depending on the traits of the character doing the deed - not just the "approach".

Another one is to allow auto-success when the DC is (iirc) 5 lower than the raw ability score (?) - again resulting in  DC being assigned but the character score making a roll unnecessary. 

So, nah, the idea that setting a DC when a roll winds up not being necessary is somehow a sign within the system of a fsilure on the GM is not supported.


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 30, 2019)

Setting a DC when a roll winds up being not necessary is a sign of bad GMing, not system weakness. This is really only an issue at lower levels with characters that have expertise, and maybe at higher levels generally but only for proficient characters facing easy tasks - you don't need to have each character memorized. Even then, setting DCs and rolling checks should only happen when there is some kind of consequence for failure anyway, regardless of the complexity of the task at hand.


----------



## Tony Vargas (May 30, 2019)

Fenris-77 said:


> When you add too much salt though, especially when mixed with store bought sarcasm, it can really bring the whole thing down.
> 
> I've played worse than nothing. 5E ain't it.
> 
> Tony beat me to the post. The above was not @_*Tony Vargas*_



 Yeah, I use homemade sarcasm, grow m'own snark, too.  



Fenris-77 said:


> Setting a DC when a roll winds up being not necessary is a sign of bad GMing, not system weakness.



 To be completely fair, it could well be both.


----------



## Fenris-77 (May 30, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yeah, I use homemade sarcasm, grow m'own snark, too.



The homemade stuff just has so much more flavour. 


Tony Vargas said:


> To be completely fair, it could well be both.



That is fair, although I think it is definitely a sign of the first and only possibly a sign of the latter.


----------



## Satyrn (May 30, 2019)

My DMing has just been slandered!

I happily set a DC the character can't fail, and it works quite well for us.


----------



## lowkey13 (May 30, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Xaelvaen (May 30, 2019)

twofalls said:


> I will be starting a new game in a few months, and find that I am very dissatisfied with the D&D 5e skill system, and would like something more comprehensive, but not terribly more complex. I could just import the system from 3.0 into 5e, however I can well imagine that this is a topic that has been addressed here before, and thought that someone might be able to point me in the direction of some good ideas or information, at least I hope as much.




I did a bit of an experiment with one of our 5E games that had some pretty positive results, and I'll gladly share to see if it'd work for you.

Having been fond of the skill rank system of 3/3.5, I used 5E's proficiency system as maximum skill rank potential and went from there.  In example, a 1st level rogue gets 4 skills, 2 more from background, and possibly one from race - with a proficiency bonus of +2.  6x2 = 12, so that's effectively 12 skill ranks.  Add two more for a racial proficiency.  Then, the players can put these ranks wherever they want.  Someone could be 'great' at stealth, with +2, but only mediocre at persuasion with +1.  It added a bit of diversity.

At level 5, the proficiency increases, so 6 more skill points, with a cap of 3 - the proficiency bonus.  Adding more skills to the list was the next step - I believe I ended up adding 3?  I can't quite recall in that regard, so I just gave everyone +1 skill rank to compensate.

It didn't drastically change how 5E functions, kept their same 'bounded accuracy' (which isn't really bound at all when it comes to skill, but at least we emulated it), and gave some dynamic change to the redundancy of the 7th set of 5e characters with the exact same skill sets.

As with all posts of this nature, I strictly adhere to the principle that this worked for my group and was fun, and may not be so for others' groups.


----------



## 5ekyu (May 30, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> My DMing has just been slandered!
> 
> I happily set a DC the character can't fail, and it works quite well for us.



I believe that has been dubbed immature by those who dub thusly, but since I do it too, I could be wrong. So, that's prolly immature too.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 1, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> I happily set a DC the character can't fail, and it works quite well for us.




I will say that sometimes its good to let players roll those low DC rolls, because it reminds them that they don't have to have +10 in something to be competent. Its easy to fall in that trap, if the players only see DC 20s thrown around they begin to assume that if they aren't making 20's than there is no point to trying.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 3, 2019)

Which is especially cogent since getting +10 in something is actually pretty difficult in 5e.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 3, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Yep. Empowerment.




Expectation of extra duties doesn't correlate to empowerment.


----------



## GMMichael (Jun 3, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> One of their options includes auto-success for DC 10 or less *for characters who are proficient* in non-disad situations. Obviously that sets up the "you set a dc" along with "it turns out to be no chsnce of failure" as a possible result - depending on the traits of the character doing the deed - not just the "approach".
> 
> Another one is to allow auto-success when the DC is (iirc) 5 lower than the raw ability score (?) - again resulting in  DC being assigned but the character score making a roll unnecessary.
> 
> So, nah, the idea that setting a DC when a roll winds up not being necessary is somehow a sign within the system of a fsilure on the GM is not supported.



Sure, there are exceptions, but if a DM is spending time assigning different DCs to different characters or determining DCs for rolls that don't even need to be made, that DM is spending less time enhancing the narrative for the PC.  I really hope that a PC is thinking "hmm, now that my hands are on this 'unclimbable' wall, the rock feels much more slick than I thought it would be.  This could be a bad sign," instead of "the DC is 22, so I don't get an auto-success for my 18 dexterity.  I'd better start counting my bonuses..."

It's a GM failure if the PCs aren't having fun.  It's a system failure if the Rules As Written don't convey the Rules As Intended.



Stalker0 said:


> I will say that sometimes its good to let players roll those low DC rolls, because it reminds them that they don't have to have +10 in something to be competent. Its easy to fall in that trap, if the players only see DC 20s thrown around they begin to assume that if they aren't making 20's than there is no point to trying.



Another thing that lets PCs know they're competent: letting them do what they say their characters do, without asking for rolls.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 3, 2019)

DMMike said:


> Sure, there are exceptions, but if a DM is spending time assigning different DCs to different characters or determining DCs for rolls that don't even need to be made, that DM is spending less time enhancing the narrative for the PC.  I really hope that a PC is thinking "hmm, now that my hands are on this 'unclimbable' wall, the rock feels much more slick than I thought it would be.  This could be a bad sign," instead of "the DC is 22, so I don't get an auto-success for my 18 dexterity.  I'd better start counting my bonuses..."
> 
> It's a GM failure if the PCs aren't having fun.  It's a system failure if the Rules As Written don't convey the Rules As Intended.
> 
> ...



I don't know if any PC has ever thought "thecDC isx22...etc" in my games, cuz they dont hear that. The PC is more likely considering the descriptive etc. The player may well be considering DC etc because, knowing the rules and their stars and the way I assign DCs they are trying to gauge outcomes - including their auyo-success chance.

But, in 5e, I dont know if I ever assigned different DCs for different PCs except for maybe a few physical types of moves where height, weight and auto-strenggh distance for jumping or such mattered. Mostly if a PC has something not accounted for that impacts significantly it's the advantage or disadvantage that applies.

I guess some folks take more time on DCs and do its an issue. Me, nah, cant think of a DC that took longer to assign than it would take me to decide "no roll needed". So, really, tho it might would be so in your games, it's a well trained and quick response in mine so, none of my time lost.

But really, so often the issue of rolls vs no rolls seems for some to hinge on time... its odd to me but we find often quite a bit of fun and novel swerves from the unexpected results of some rolls. I wonder if it's an outgrowth of  "checks are simple binary pass fail" vs "checks are not binary with lots of resolutions that can be fun and interesting" thing? I imagine if even a third the ability checks- in my games were binary pass fail only we might be inclined to see them differently. 

As for the last bit, about the non-roll competence... well it depends. If the player of Str 18 hulk knows the shove open the door was auto because he knows the high strength net the auto-success threshold or his athletics did, that points to *his* strengths playing a role. If it's just "gm says no role" it's not really spotlighting anything except no roll needed.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Jun 3, 2019)

Stalker0 said:


> I will say that *sometimes *its good to let players roll those low DC rolls, because it reminds them that they don't have to have +10 in something to be competent. Its easy to fall in that trap, if the players only see DC 20s thrown around they begin to assume that if they aren't making 20's than there is no point to trying.






DMMike said:


> Another thing that lets PCs know they're competent: letting them do what they say their characters do, without asking for rolls.




The key word in [MENTION=5889]Stalker0[/MENTION] quote is 'sometimes': a word which here means less than 'occasionally' but more than 'never'.  With my apologies to Lemony Snicket.

I agree that most of the time, given a good goal and approach, just let the PC succeed and move on to the more challenging stuff.  Especially true when there is no meaningful consequence of failure.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 3, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> Expectation of extra duties doesn't correlate to empowerment.



 Sure it does.  Usually to no change in job title nor increase in pay, too. 



DMMike said:


> Sure, there are exceptions, but if a DM is spending time assigning different DCs to different characters or determining DCs for rolls that don't even need to be made, that DM is spending less time enhancing the narrative for the PC.



 I agree a more with the latter than the former. It's not much time, for at least some return, taking into account /who/ is making an attempt.  It may not much more time to figure every DC whether the task is a foregone conclusion or not, but what's the potential return?  



> It's a GM failure if the PCs aren't having fun.  It's a system failure if the Rules As Written don't convey the Rules As Intended.



 What if the Rules Are Intended to be ambiguous, so the DM has plenty of room to interpret them as desired?


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 3, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> Which is especially cogent since getting +10 in something is actually pretty difficult in 5e.




Sometimes. With my party:

1) +3 prof
2) +5 stat
3) +2.5 (Guidance)

There's the +10. And that doesn't even start with the bard powers and the two characters that have expertise. Hitting 30's in my game is a lot more common than the "impossible" tag it gets noted.


----------



## Warmaster Horus (Jun 3, 2019)

I don't think I've ever played in an RPG whose skill system was 'just right'.  It's a very hard concept to conceptualize in a discrete system.


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jun 3, 2019)

My main problem with asking players to roll for skill checks that don't have obvious consequences and should be a matter of course for their skill level is the potential for rolling that '1'. If there are no consequences and the task is easy, why add the potential for failure? It might be realistic for some definitions of that for an RPG, but mostly I think it just feels like a screw job. I save the potential for failure for challenging tasks or ones that have obvious drama inherent in failure.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 4, 2019)

Stalker0 said:


> Sometimes. With my party:
> 
> 1) +3 prof
> 2) +5 stat
> ...




+5 stat makes you a world-champion material natural at the task out of the gate. You are one of the most naturally talented individuals at a task that your race is especially good at. Then you stack on top of that "has studied for their life so far at doing this task" and "is guided by the hand of a diety".

In terms of the numbers that players hit, it's not particularly remarkable. In terms of what those numbers are supposed to represent in the world? That should be pretty special. The disjoint between those things is one of the flaws in the system.


----------



## Swarmkeeper (Jun 4, 2019)

Fenris-77 said:


> My main problem with asking players to roll for skill checks that don't have obvious consequences and should be a matter of course for their skill level is the potential for rolling that '1'. If there are no consequences and the task is easy, why add the potential for failure? It might be realistic for some definitions of that for an RPG, but mostly I think it just feels like a screw job. I save the potential for failure for challenging tasks or ones that have obvious drama inherent in failure.




I'm with you.  In fact, I'd say you've internalized the rule on pg 237 of the DMG (emphasis mine):

[SECTION]*Using Ability Scores*

When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. For example, a character doesn't normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. *Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.* When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:


Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible-such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?

If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate. The following sections provide guidance on determining whether to call for an ability check, attack roll, or saving throw; how to assign DCs; when to use advantage and disadvantage; and other related topics.[/SECTION]


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 4, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Sure it does.




Nuh uh, with sugar on top.

Or, if I actually want a reasoned argument:
A beggar and a slave are unempowered. A ceo and a playboy are empowered. The concepts of work and empowerment are not linked except when someone is trying to drive an agenda.


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 4, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I locally source my all of my sarcasm.
> 
> And I only use organic irony, with free-range sardonic asides.




No vegan smart ass?


----------



## Fenris-77 (Jun 4, 2019)

My break point might be higher than some, but yeah, that's the idea. I like to try and keep the mechanics to a minimum when possible. Mostly, if a character is attempting a DC 10 task with a total mod of +5 I won't bother asking them to roll unless. That unless can either be a time crunch or some sort of heightened situational shizz, like trying to pick a lock while looking casual or with improvised picks. Or mid combat or a comparable situation where the action economy is taxed.  There's only so much time in a session and I'd prefer to spend it on dramatic and heroic type stuff rather than Rolemaster style "oops you cut your own throat while shaving" nonsense.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 4, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 4, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> Donkey isn’t vegan.




I've seen vegan bacon, vegan hamburger and for heavens sake, vegan shoes!  They can make vegan donkeys if they make the effort.


----------



## lowkey13 (Jun 4, 2019)

*Deleted by user*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 4, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> . The concepts of work and empowerment are not linked except when someone is trying to drive an agenda.



 What sort if agenda?  Making more money?


----------



## EzekielRaiden (Jun 4, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> What sort if agenda?  Making more money?




I _believe_ Saeviomagy is saying that someone can be empowered purely through the genetic lottery, or can work fantastically hard and be totally powerless (e.g. slave labor). I think they are perhaps belaboring the point a bit much, as it's not the case that work is _totally_ unrelated to empowerment, or there would be no such thing as struggling toward change (e.g. there was an _enormous_ amount of work that went into the Montgomery bus boycott, chosen as an example simply because I was reading about the history of it yesterday). But it's also definitely worth remembering that "just working hard" is quite far from a guarantee of success or benefit.

Of course, I could be mistaken, because for some reason I can't _see_ any of Saeviomagy's posts. And I've already confirmed they aren't on my block list (no one is).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 4, 2019)

EzekielRaiden said:


> I _believe_ Saeviomagy is saying that someone can be empowered purely through the genetic lottery, or can work fantastically hard and be totally powerless (e.g. slave labor). I think they are perhaps belaboring the point a bit much, as it's not the case that work is _totally_ unrelated to empowerment, or there would be no such thing as struggling toward change (e.g. there was an _enormous_ amount of work that went into the Montgomery bus boycott, chosen as an example simply because I was reading about the history of it yesterday). But it's also definitely worth remembering that "just working hard" is quite far from a guarantee of success or benefit.
> 
> Of course, I could be mistaken, because for some reason I can't _see_ any of Saeviomagy's posts. And I've already confirmed they aren't on my block list (no one is).



They've blocked you.


----------



## MrDM69 (Jun 4, 2019)

I haven't used 3e myself (I have looked at some of the 3e skills though), but I like the skills in 5e. The 3e skills sound more like actions and less like skills, and some of those skills have been replaced with tools in 5e (for example, open lock has been replaced with thieves' tools). It was simplified in 5e. But if you normally play 3e, you should use those skills.


----------



## GMMichael (Jun 4, 2019)

5ekyu said:


> I guess some folks take more time on DCs and do its an issue. Me, nah, cant think of a DC that took longer to assign than it would take me to decide "no roll needed". So, really, tho it might would be so in your games, it's a well trained and quick response in mine so, none of my time lost.



That's good.  I notice that D&D has a breakdown of what DCs should be in five-point increments, which is much better than stressing over the difference between a 13 or a 14.  Still, I find it odd that DMs have to ask themselves "is there a roll needed here?" or "would a roll for this auto-succeed?"  I prefer just to let PCs tell their share of the story, and when it occurs to me that MY version of the story (as GM) would be different from what I'm hearing, that's when I ask for a roll.  It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.



Tony Vargas said:


> I agree a more with the latter than the former. It's not much time, for at least some return, taking into account /who/ is making an attempt.  It may not much more time to figure every DC whether the task is a foregone conclusion or not, but what's the potential return?



There's an interesting aspect of D&D difficulty classes: they're the exact same thing, mathematically, as penalties to a PC's roll.  In a sense, EVERY DC is 10, and when things get more difficult, the PC's roll just takes a penalty against that 10.  So I don't see PCs as having different DCs to accomplish the same task.  Your return on the investment of customizing DCs is that you have a custom-tailored DC waiting for a PC who might not even end up rolling for that DC.  Wasted time.  If you use one DC, and just apply a bonus or penalty to the PC's check who is making the attempt, then at least you're spending rules-related time on a character who is invested in that rule/judgment/DC.  



Tony Vargas said:


> What if the Rules Are Intended to be ambiguous, so the DM has plenty of room to interpret them as desired?



You stopped a little short of a product endorsement there, but I'll take it.  I would hope that the players in that situation understand the DM's interpretations, otherwise they're headed for GM _and_ system failure.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 4, 2019)

DMMike said:


> That's good.  I notice that D&D has a breakdown of what DCs should be in five-point increments, which is much better than stressing over the difference between a 13 or a 14.  Still, I find it odd that DMs have to ask themselves "is there a roll needed here?" or "would a roll for this auto-succeed?"  I prefer just to let PCs tell their share of the story, and when it occurs to me that MY version of the story (as GM) would be different from what I'm hearing, that's when I ask for a roll.  It's a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless.
> 
> 
> There's an interesting aspect of D&D difficulty classes: they're the exact same thing, mathematically, as penalties to a PC's roll.  In a sense, EVERY DC is 10, and when things get more difficult, the PC's roll just takes a penalty against that 10.  So I don't see PCs as having different DCs to accomplish the same task.  Your return on the investment of customizing DCs is that you have a custom-tailored DC waiting for a PC who might not even end up rolling for that DC.  Wasted time.  If you use one DC, and just apply a bonus or penalty to the PC's check who is making the attempt, then at least you're spending rules-related time on a character who is invested in that rule/judgment/DC.
> ...



Yeah well I guess we just dont get by as best we can. We just lumber our way thru, with our story and gameplay- not mine or theirs but our. 

Calls for checks (possibly even rolls) are made when resolutions are needed and the specifics of the characters will matter. Kinda what we all blundered into when we started mucking around with all that chargen stuff about ability scores, proficiencies, size of HD, 5' increments of movement etc etc etc asbif ghost was gonna be useful.

But it works for us but we never found it odd that questions of certainty or not and resolution mechanics etc would come up in that kind of game. If we wanted a more tell my story vs tell their story conflicts-only resolution gameplay, we could have and would have chosen any number of other systems that focus chargen and minimal mechanics around that experience rather than one as mechanics driven as 5e. Pages of character stats and numbers dont really help that playstyle all that much in our experience, duffers that we are.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 4, 2019)

EzekielRaiden said:


> I _believe_ Saeviomagy is saying that someone can be empowered purely through the genetic lottery, or can work fantastically hard and be totally powerless (e.g. slave labor).



 Broader meaning of 'empowerment' sounds like.  There's having power, and there's being delegated the 'power' to take initiative & self-manage in order to meet more ambitious expectations (a cynical spin on the management-buzzword version of empowerment, because y'know, it's me).  

And, TBH, DM Empowerment does not sound like the social activism meaning of Empowerment.  Players fit the model of a disenfranchised majority, not DMs, who, if anything, are the 1%ers (OK, 17%ers 5:1 being a pretty common playerM ratio).  Also, that kind of empowerment doesn't flow from an authority by fiat.  If there were a grassroots player movement standing up to tyrannical DMs, they might be after that kinda empowerment.



DMMike said:


> Your return on the investment of customizing DCs is that you have a custom-tailored DC waiting for a PC who might not even end up rolling for that DC.  Wasted time.



 If you use the whole 5e skill system, though, that literally never happens.  You only determine a DC when a player has declared an action, /and/ you've decided not to simply narrate success or failure.  Only at that point do you determine a DC.  



> I would hope that the players in that situation understand the DM's interpretations, otherwise they're headed for GM _and_ system failure.



 Nod.  Players need to be able to trust their Empowered 5e DM, more so than the 5e system, because that system is just a starting point, the DM, not the system, is going to get you were you actually want to go.  It's a radical change in philosophy from 3e/4e, even if a lot of the underlying mechanics are very similar.


----------



## twofalls (Jun 4, 2019)

I'm surprised that this thread still has any life left in it, I've long ago stopped paying attention to it, but have been getting notices. I do want to thank the contributors, I learned a lot reading this.


----------



## Stalker0 (Jun 4, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> You only determine a DC when a player has declared an action, /and/ you've decided not to simply narrate success or failure.  Only at that point do you determine a DC.




Or DCs. I think many actions warrant progressive dcs.

For example, let’s say a player is investigating a scene. I might set a dc 15 to determine a particular fact. But if the player rolls a 30...I’m likely going to give them more. A 30 is Sherlock Holmes level of deduction, they can literally make connections that aren’t possible to a normal mind.

Many scenarios aren’t black and white, the die roll can give increasing levels of benefits depending on the check involved


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 4, 2019)

Stalker0 said:


> Or DCs. I think many actions warrant progressive dcs.
> 
> For example, let’s say a player is investigating a scene. I might set a dc 15 to determine a particular fact. But if the player rolls a 30...I’m likely going to give them more.



 Degrees of success?  Sure. But you don't even really need to determine any break-points ahead of the roll, do you?  Just, take into account the magnitude of the result when you narrate the success.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 4, 2019)

lowkey13 said:


> I don’t want to shatter your illusions, but coconut milk doesn’t come from a cow that drank pina coladas.




My illusions! They have been shattered!

Or: 

That is actually exactly where coconut milk comes from in *my* megadungeon campaign.


----------



## Satyrn (Jun 4, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> Degrees of success?  Sure. But you don't even really need to determine any break-points ahead of the roll, do you?  Just, take into account the magnitude of the result when you narrate the success.




I do need to determine them ahead of time. Or I would if I actually used degrees of success.

I have found some my most unsatisfying DMing comes when I don't decide what a die roll means before it is rolled.


----------



## 5ekyu (Jun 4, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> My illusions! They have been shattered!
> 
> Or:
> 
> That is actually exactly where coconut milk comes from in *my* megadungeon campaign.



Actually - it might not be called coconut milk much longer anyway!!!


----------



## Maxperson (Jun 5, 2019)

Satyrn said:


> That is actually exactly where coconut milk comes from in *my* megadungeon campaign.




That sounds like a creature that belongs on a certain level of Castle Greyhawk, along with the Minitaurs, Solid Gas Spores and Crettins.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jun 7, 2019)

Tony Vargas said:


> What sort if agenda?  Making more money?




Getting someone to do work typically.
My entire point is that giving someone more work to do is not in and of itself empowering.

In this case, the rules make more work. That does not empower the DM, because the DM always had the power to make a specific assessment, modify dcs or throw the rules away if they want to. You can only empower a DM with rules by giving them good tools.

So - more work is just a negative. More work + results that don't reflect desired goals = poor rules.

Incidentally, I can see EzekielRaiden just fine, so I'm not sure why he can't see me? My block list is totally empty.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Jun 7, 2019)

Saeviomagy said:


> In this case, the rules make more work. That does not empower the DM, because the DM always had the power to make a specific assessment, modify dcs or throw the rules away if they want to.



 You make some strong points, there.   Yes, Empowerment does mean more work, more skill/talent required.

But that just means the Role of DM is that much harder to fill, that much more valuable.


----------



## Necroposter (Aug 19, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> I think you need to start by describing the goals you're trying to achieve by changing the system.  You say you're very dissatisfied, but you don't really describe what's dissatisfying.  You also say you want something more comprehensive, but I'm not sure what you think is lacking.  Then you mention 3.0 skill system but, to be honest, I find that system equally comprehensive and needlessly more complex (and 3.5 is worse with all the situational modifiers).  You think there should be more skills?  You don't like the proficiency system?  You think a 10th level character should expect to automatically succeed on skill rolls?
> 
> My problem with skill systems in general is that there are only two broad types of systems. The first one has fairly generic all-encompassing skills that you get to pick a few of. That's not terribly realistic because characters can do things that don't seem related and some skills just become must-haves.  However, the alternative systems that say, "Our Zombo.com system has _unlimited skills_! Anything can be a skill!" can be much worse. The problem with those systems is that you _still_ only get a limited selection of skills, and because the number of skills is so diverse you stand a much better chance of not being able to even roll a die because the DM thinks that, for example, modifying the starship navicomputer requires Electronics instead of Computers, Astrogation, or Repair. It's a pigeonholing problem. Skills stop being about things you're good at and instead _define everything you can't even try to do_.
> 
> So, that's kind of what I mean. What kind of outcomes in game play do you want for a skill system? What do you intend for it to accomplish in the game itself? Define your problems, describe your desired outcomes. _Be specific._  "I want more skills," isn't an outcome but, "I want the players to have to make tougher choices," is.  "I want bigger bonuses," isn't an outcome, but, "I want skills to represent a broader range of expertise than 'skilled' and 'not skilled'," is.




Really, really *REALLY *sorry for necroposting. But I felt the imperative need to reply to this.

As they say, the Devil is in the details. In your example, you want to modify the Navicomputer. _How _do you want to modify it? That's the question. You want to modify the wiring that goes to the ship's main generator, maybe add some regulator and switches to divert the flux of power to other systems? That's Electronics. You want to modify the operating system of the console? That's computers. You don't want to modify, but chart a route for the ship across hyperspace? That's Astrogation. I'll agree with you that Repair is kinda vague, so the DM should specify when Repair goes.

I'll will, furthermore, add a real life example. I am a graphic designer, and so if I would have a skill ala D&D, that would be Graphic Design, not jus Design. Why not? Because I'm not an Interior Designer, not a Software Designer, not a Industrial Designer, not a Fashion Designer, I am a Graphic Designer, and thus my knowledge applies to that branch of design. 

That's what I wanted to say. I'll be going now.


----------

