|
12 months ago ::
Jun 08, 2012 - 10:40PM
#141
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
5E DMs:
DM1: "Hmmm.. this wood door is easy so it should be DC 5", "This adamantine door is insanely hard so DC 25"
Why aren't any of the hypothetical 5e DMs looking at the "Open a Door" chart that is in the packet (which specifically covers wood doors for instance)? Or the likely larger chart that will be in the final product (since I doubt adamantine doors are very relevant to 3rd level characters)?
We can change it from a wood door to a stone rock they are trying to push out of the doorway, it doesn't matter what it is...
Why would you need a DC for this? Push/Pull/Carry are all flat rules that are laid out under the Strength score write-up in the Playtest packet...
[16 Str = 160 lbs unencumbered weight allowance * 5 = push/drag 800 lbs] No check is required for this, just math.
If the stone rock = more than 800 lbs it may take more than just the party Fighter to move it.
I've read a lot of your posts and it really sounds to me like you end up at odds a lot with your style of play vs. your DMs style of storytelling.
I would humbly suggest that you DM a game with your normal group and let your DM play a character in your campaign. Maybe after a few sessions he could see the value in your style that would allow for you to have more flexibility in his.
I started DMing for this very reason years ago. At first I hated it, but I've had a lot of great campaigns since.
To the OP,
I read that you provided this thread based off of a "strawman" argument against DM Fiat because it left a bad taste in your mouth. I am sorry that it does, and I completely disagree that 4E "corrected/solved/removed" this problem. Rules allow for consistency across gaming tables, of that I do not disagree with you, but DMs have a responsibility to make gameplay fun for characters, period. If they aren't doing that then they shouldn't DM.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 09, 2012 - 11:21AM
#142
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
So this happened at our table the other day and I was wondering how common this is.
One of the players was describing his action and the DM informed him of the DC. The player shot back with, "my other 5e DM said I could do this automatically cause I am a rogue the first time we played." Well, the player failed the roll and spent the rest of the game not being a happy camper. And that killed our game.
I get that the player should not be so childish. But with the current rules being so geared towards DM approval, this seems like it could be a common problem.
Our group plays 3E with two different DMs. Myself (as DM) plays closer to the book rules. The other DM plays with a lot of fast and loose house rules. We have players from both games at the tables. Because, our gamers are not rules lawyers and mechanics hounds, there is no comparing one DMs style of play or adjudications. Our players keep the differences separated with no problems.
But I will say, being a fan of theatrical role-playing, even 3E is restrictive of my DMing style. This new system, being more open-based interpretation allows for some dramatic situations in combat that can't always be achieved in 3E.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 09, 2012 - 4:59PM
#143
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2008
|
Lokiare you are now simply talking out your rear end and making stuff up. 4E DMs (with made up DCs as I'm too lazy to look up the real numbers):
DM1: "Hmmm...look at chart... ok wood door is DC 13", "Adamantine door DC 25"
DM2: "Hmmm...look at chart... ok wood door is DC 13", "Adamantine door DC 25"
DM3: "Hmmm...look at chart... ok wood door is DC 13", "Adamantine door DC 25"
No, that is not how it worked in 4th ed. In 4th ed we actually got:
DM#: Hmmm.. you're level 1, let me look at the chart, this wooden door is a DC 13 to break down.
DM#: Hmmm.. you're level 5, let me look at the chart. This wooden door is now suddenly DC 18 to break down.
DM#: Hmmm.. you're level 10, let me look at the chart. This wooden door is now DC 23 to break down.
Now the above situation is just stupid. It's the same door that somehow keeps getting harder because it scales with the PCs. Now any DM with half a brain between their ears would go "That doesn't make and that's stupid. Let me instead make up a DC that some logic behind it" but doing so would be houseruling. By RAW you are only suppose to give PCs a DC within 3 levels above them or 1 level below them.
What you're describing is how DCs were created in 3.5e where the DCs had some basis in logic.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
5E DMs:
DM1: "Hmmm.. this wood door is easy so it should be DC 5", "This adamantine door is insanely hard so DC 25"
DM2: "Hmmm... this wood door is hard so DC 17", "This adamantine door is very hard so DC 20"
DM3: "Hmmm... this wood door is so easy its automatic", "This adamantine door is just impossible, auto fail"...
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
You are categorically wrong and have clearly not read the DM guidelines. On page 7 there is an entire section called "Open a Door" and it has a chart with one column labelled "Break Open a Locked Door or Barred Door" with the second column having DCs. It lists 4 types of doors and has appropriate DCs right next to it. There is even a type of door that says "typical dungeon door" so the DM knows which door to use in most dungeons.
I am seriously doubting that you've actually got legitimate complaints with 5th edition. It sounds like you have decided you aren't going to like this edition and so will find reasons to dislike it. Because not only are you misrepresenting 5th edition, you're also making stuff up for 4th edition.
We can change it from a wood door to a stone rock they are trying to push out of the doorway, it doesn't matter what it is...
Right. So once you've been proven wrong in one scenario, you simply change it to fit your fickle mood because you don't have legitimate complaints here. But to respond to this changed goal posts, clearly the boulder in DM 1's campaign had different weights and sizes. Oh wait, that's impossible because all boulders are identical and never have different characteristics. I forgot about that, clearly those DMs are just awesome DMs who simply cannot handle 5th edition and therefore 5th edition is terrible.
Lokiare doesn't like that DMs are being asked to set DCs for various common tasks.
Hence why there is a common tasks section in our meagre rules PDF. I have to say in all my games of D&D, I've never had to push a boulder somewhere. Nor do I think it is reasonable for us to demand WotC give us hard-coded DCs for all the different types of boulders that exist. Instead they've given us guidelines on what DC is appropriate for the amount of a challenge you want to throw at the PCs (gees, that sounds like the 4th ed DC table in the DMG) so you can accurately determine the DC for moving a boulder.
One example of a common task, where the DM might be forced to make up a DC is forcing open a wooden door.
Page 2 of the DM Guidelines under "moderate" DCs.
But yes, I do agree with you geoffa.
Why would you need a DC for this? Push/Pull/Carry are all flat rules that are laid out under the Strength score write-up in the Playtest packet...
Touche 2LSan, touche. I imagine Lokiare is now going to change the challenge yet again. Eventually he'll find something not covered by the rules.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 09, 2012 - 10:11PM
#144
|
|
|
Lokiare you are now simply talking out your rear end and making stuff up.
4E DMs (with made up DCs as I'm too lazy to look up the real numbers):
DM1: "Hmmm...look at chart... ok wood door is DC 13", "Adamantine door DC 25"
DM2: "Hmmm...look at chart... ok wood door is DC 13", "Adamantine door DC 25"
DM3: "Hmmm...look at chart... ok wood door is DC 13", "Adamantine door DC 25"
No, that is not how it worked in 4th ed. In 4th ed we actually got:
DM#: Hmmm.. you're level 1, let me look at the chart, this wooden door is a DC 13 to break down.
DM#: Hmmm.. you're level 5, let me look at the chart. This wooden door is now suddenly DC 18 to break down.
DM#: Hmmm.. you're level 10, let me look at the chart. This wooden door is now DC 23 to break down.
If your DM did that, they didn't pay attention to the rules. At level one it might be a wooden door, at level 5 it should have been a stuck wooden door. At level 10 it should have been a stuck reinforced wooden door with runes on it.
Its supposed to be a level appropriate challenge, not a challenge that has a level appropriate DC.
Now the above situation is just stupid. It's the same door that somehow keeps getting harder because it scales with the PCs. Now any DM with half a brain between their ears would go "That doesn't make and that's stupid. Let me instead make up a DC that some logic behind it" but doing so would be houseruling. By RAW you are only suppose to give PCs a DC within 3 levels above them or 1 level below them.
What you're describing is how DCs were created in 3.5e where the DCs had some basis in logic.
Yeah no, see my above comments. It gave you level appropriate DCs, which the DM was supposed to select level appropriate challenges from. That your personal experience is different says that whoever DM'd for you didn't exactly read the rules and was therefore house ruling.
5E DMs:
DM1: "Hmmm.. this wood door is easy so it should be DC 5", "This adamantine door is insanely hard so DC 25"
DM2: "Hmmm... this wood door is hard so DC 17", "This adamantine door is very hard so DC 20"
DM3: "Hmmm... this wood door is so easy its automatic", "This adamantine door is just impossible, auto fail"...
You are categorically wrong and have clearly not read the DM guidelines. On page 7 there is an entire section called "Open a Door" and it has a chart with one column labelled "Break Open a Locked Door or Barred Door" with the second column having DCs. It lists 4 types of doors and has appropriate DCs right next to it. There is even a type of door that says "typical dungeon door" so the DM knows which door to use in most dungeons.
That's why I wanted to change it up to something else. Something that doesn't have a chart. Regardless before you even look for a chart it tells you to determine if you think it should be an auto-success or auto-failure. If it is supposed to be an auto-failure or auto-success, whether or not its on a chart is irrelevant because the DM has already ruled on it.
I am seriously doubting that you've actually got legitimate complaints with 5th edition. It sounds like you have decided you aren't going to like this edition and so will find reasons to dislike it. Because not only are you misrepresenting 5th edition, you're also making stuff up for 4th edition.
In your opinion I don't have legitimate complaints against 5E. In reality I have many, one of which is the whole DM fiat approach. Others include vancian casting in core, linear fighters and duodratic wizards, rogues that suck in combat, clerics that can replace the fighter.
As to 4E, see the above comments. I haven't made anything up. I've simply actually read the rules...
We can change it from a wood door to a stone rock they are trying to push out of the doorway, it doesn't matter what it is...
Right. So once you've been proven wrong in one scenario, you simply change it to fit your fickle mood because you don't have legitimate complaints here. But to respond to this changed goal posts, clearly the boulder in DM 1's campaign had different weights and sizes. Oh wait, that's impossible because all boulders are identical and never have different characteristics. I forgot about that, clearly those DMs are just awesome DMs who simply cannot handle 5th edition and therefore 5th edition is terrible.
They have like 4 charts in the DM guide. What about the other 600 things that are in the game? As to the boulder what if it doesn't give a weight? then the DM just has to make up a DC or a minimum strength score or whatever. Also no changed goal posts, only changed example. Wow your ad hominem attacks are getting ignorant...
Lokiare doesn't like that DMs are being asked to set DCs for various common tasks.
Hence why there is a common tasks section in our meager rules PDF. I have to say in all my games of D&D, I've never had to push a boulder somewhere. Nor do I think it is reasonable for us to demand WotC give us hard-coded DCs for all the different types of boulders that exist. Instead they've given us guidelines on what DC is appropriate for the amount of a challenge you want to throw at the PCs (gees, that sounds like the 4th ed DC table in the DMG) so you can accurately determine the DC for moving a boulder.
One example of a common task, where the DM might be forced to make up a DC is forcing open a wooden door.
Page 2 of the DM Guidelines under "moderate" DCs.
But yes, I do agree with you geoffa.
Why would you need a DC for this? Push/Pull/Carry are all flat rules that are laid out under the Strength score write-up in the Playtest packet...
Touche 2LSan, touche. I imagine Lokiare is now going to change the challenge yet again. Eventually he'll find something not covered by the rules.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 1:04PM
#145
|
Date Joined:
Aug 14, 2005
|
A. Some people view "role playing" as faithfully acting out their character's backstory and mechanics.
B. Some people view "role playing" as going beyond the limitations of their character's backstory and mechanics.
C. Some people view "role playing" as simply making sh*t up on the fly.
D. Some people view "role playing" as adopting mannerisms, accents and personalities as if acting in a play.
This whole post is one of the best, most well thought out posts on different player perspectives on mechanics that I have seen in a long time. I just wanted to say thanks for that. Great food for thought.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 12, 2012 - 5:27PM
#146
|
Date Joined:
Sep 18, 2009
|
I am going to jump back in.
First, let me say thank you to the folks that have posted. Following this thread has made critically evaluate my position on being a player and a DM. Careful introspection is a good thing and this thread has forced me to do this.
Now, going back to my OP. turns out DM1 (whic was actually me) was fine rules wise. I assinged an easy DC and realized that the rogue would succeed on a 1. Thus, I didn't make him roll. DM2 also assigned an "easy" DC that was a few points higher than mine. BUT everyone at the table forgot about rogue skill talent once the other player got heated. So this was a case of bad dm. And several of you figured this out early on. Kudos to reviewing the rules better than my group. Chalk it up to only dm-ing 5e for two weeks.
The next game session we actually had to sit and discuss improv and dm fiat for 2 of our 4 hours of game time. This was a mighty interesting discussion. Of our 3 DMs I found that I was by far the most likely to assign a lower DC. And the group realized that any game I dm would be full of improv and probably a fair bit of 'put the dice away'. The person who is my favorite DM of the group was on the other end of the spectrum. While I like cinematic game play with superheroes, he likes a very gritty game. We spent a lot of time discussing various scenarios of improv and consistently set dcs about 2-3 points higher than me.
While I originally thought that I had a rules issue, turns out it was not near as drastic as I had thought.
But it does mean that some serious thought has to go into setting up a game. A dm really has to get to know his/her style before launching a 5e play test. It seems like there is more existential (for lack of a better word) investigation required by the dm. Failure to know thyself and thy biases can lead to inconsistent game play and thus the dread dm fiat rears its ugly head.
Which leads to my next thought. This has already been mentioned in this thread... But is there a huge assumption being made by the devs that all DMs are capable of being able to introspect and maintain a consistent game? And is that assumption a sound one?
Me personally, I feel that the play test presents just enough rules to be dangerous. There are enough rules to get the ball rolling but maybe not enough rules to keep it from flying off the cliff. But I don't know. Will it get sorted out in the beta testing? Maybe. Hopefully.
Everyone, thank you again.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 5:58AM
#147
|
|
|
Glad you got it all sorted out.
I don't have any way of knowing if this is true, but I'd bet the vast majority of game groups have one DM and a group of players. As long as only one person is DMing it shouldn't really be a problem.
The devs aren't trying to make a game that holds the DMs hand and guides him through the entire campaign. They've already done that twice. They're trying to make a game that gives a broad set of outlines and lets each DM find their own style at the table. D&D survived its infancy designed this way. I'm sure it'll do fine going forward.
And if there's any DMs that can't find their style, I guess they can go back to 3.x or 4e or just hand the reins over to someone else.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 6:25AM
#148
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2001
|
Lokaire, ( not chastising I promise). Did you read the DM guidelines portion of the packet ? It gives examples of DCs and how to apply ads/disads. They set a max DC. It's actually fairly clear. If a DM rules differently it isn't for a lack of info.
Well clearly that didn't work if one DM is giving autosuccess and another is making a roll for the same action.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 6:27AM
#149
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2001
|
Glad you got it all sorted out.
I don't have any way of knowing if this is true, but I'd bet the vast majority of game groups have one DM and a group of players. As long as only one person is DMing it shouldn't really be a problem.
I suspect this is going to be a problem then in every group I've been a member of over 20+ years of playing DM responsibility was shared out, people would take turns.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 13, 2012 - 6:32AM
#150
|
|
|
Lokaire, ( not chastising I promise). Did you read the DM guidelines portion of the packet ? It gives examples of DCs and how to apply ads/disads. They set a max DC. It's actually fairly clear. If a DM rules differently it isn't for a lack of info.
Well clearly that didn't work if one DM is giving autosuccess and another is making a roll for the same action.
To me, this is a sign that it is working. The game is allowing DMs to create different worlds with a different feel (heroic or gritty) while still using the same base rules. More campaign styles under the same roof is a good thing.
|
|
|
