It allows a DM to impede a character's attempt to do something so the DM can railroad things. It removes what might be even just the remotest possibility of doing something and leaves it to the whims of the DM. The DM has the final word in the game. But that's too arbitrary and likely to be abused by even the least cruel or DMs.
Any DM can do whatever they want and abuse any dice system in whatever way seems fit. The 20 sided die allows for more variety, and this is the fault of bad Dungeon Masters, not the system. Honestly, a DM who wants to railroad a party can do so regardless of what dice you roll and what tables (if any) are used.
Firstly, there was a time when saving throws and skill checks were rolled against fixed numbers determined by one's class and level. Need to make a save against something? Roll over #. Want to try to do something? Roll under the relevant stat. Or # in 6 or the provided percentage.
There is a reason this somewhat terrible system is no longer in place anymore. Different checks and challenges have drastically different chances of succeeding, and some will never work no matter how hard you try. Setting a standard for successes and failures only makes it so you can't account for variety and the differences in saving throws and certain stats.
These systems work slightly better when the DM can provide penalties and bonuses to the rolls. However, this also has problems with bad DMs rail-roading players (all dice systems do), and it still puts stress on the Dungeon Master to quickly think up modifiers, and that erases one of the benefits people like of tables for how every roll succeeds or not.
Your first point is true. A DM can try to railroad things whatever the system. I just think it is more open to abuse when the DM chooses the target number and not the rules. It's a bit like allowing the DM to just decide that even though you hit an opponent's AC you didn't hit that opponent. I also think it is much more concrete and less abstract for a player to know what their chances are of doing something in most given situations. I gave the example of how weird it would be if a game like Call of Cthulhu didn't use percentages for skills but instead increments of percentiles to be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the Keeper just deciding what the percentage would be to succeed or fail.
Your other point is only half true. As bonuses and penalties were applicable to account for variety. This could simply be replaced with Advantage/Disadvantage if it's so much stress on a DM to decide whether a player needs to add or subtract one or two points to or from a roll. A DM who can't think on his or her toes even that much is probably sitting in the wrong chair at the table.
I like the d20 system. It's a good feature that most game systems work the same way. Earlier version with some things being "d20, roll under", some things being "d20 roll over", some being "2d6" some being "d%" were difficult to learn and, more often than not, the system got in the way of the game.
Now we have a unified system: Roll a d20. Add a number for the character's physical statistics (ability score mod). Add a number for their experience, skill and knowledge (proficiency bonus). Maybe add a number for tools or the lack thereof, or for some feature of the environment. Is the total equal to or greater than the target? Then you succeed. Otherwise you don't. What's the target number? 10 for an easy task, 15 for a medium task, 20 for a hard task, and so on.
Remember that this all fits in the core gameplay loop of an RPG.
1. The GM describes the scene. 2. The players describe their characters' goals (what they want to achieve) and their approaches (how they are trying to do it, what tools and resources and knowledge they are using). 3. The GM determines if the approach succeeds, fails, or has a chance either way. 3a. If a chance either way, then someone makes a random resolution (in D&D 5E, using the d20 mechanic above). 4. The GM narrates the outcome (the results of the characters' actions ) and consequences (how the world changes in response to those actions, whether successful or not). 5. Goto 1.
The RPG Everway explained step 3 in terms of karma, drama and fortune. Karma meant, "does the character deserve to succeed based on their skills, talents, experience, background, and/or knowledge?" Drama meant, "Does it suit the story that the character succeed?" Fortune meant random resolution, using a special deck of cards known as the Fortune Deck.
Your first point is true. A DM can try to railroad things whatever the system. I just think it is more open to abuse when the DM chooses the target number and not the rules.
The DM always chooses the target number, regardless of edition, because he's the one who decided what the challenge was in the first place.
Your first point is true. A DM can try to railroad things whatever the system. I just think it is more open to abuse when the DM chooses the target number and not the rules.
The DM always chooses the target number, regardless of edition, because he's the one who decided what the challenge was in the first place.
If you can't see the difference between the DM telling the player the character has just drunk poison and the player then needing to to make a save against a target number provided in a table and the DM telling the player the same has happened and to make a save but the DM gets to come up with the target number, I really don't know what to tell you. But I'm sure you've a gold medal awaiting you if you compete in the gymnastics in Paris in 2024!
If you can't see the difference between the DM telling the player the character has just drunk poison and the player then needing to to make a save against a target number provided in a table and the DM telling the player the same has happened and to make a save but the DM gets to come up with the target number, I really don't know what to tell you. But I'm sure you've a gold medal awaiting you if you compete in the gymnastics in Paris in 2024!
In AD&D, I would just say "make a save against poison at +2" or "make a save against poison at -4" or whatever; there are plenty of examples of poisons with save modifiers.
If you can't see the difference between the DM telling the player the character has just drunk poison and the player then needing to to make a save against a target number provided in a table and the DM telling the player the same has happened and to make a save but the DM gets to come up with the target number, I really don't know what to tell you. But I'm sure you've a gold medal awaiting you if you compete in the gymnastics in Paris in 2024!
In AD&D, I would just say "make a save against poison at +2" or "make a save against poison at -4" or whatever; there are plenty of examples of poisons with save modifiers.
Those bonuses and penalties are there to reflect situational conditions. Much like Advantage and Disadvantage do in the current edition. So what? That goes nowhere towards addressing what I'm actually talking about: the difference between a target number established by one's class and level and one that is just chosen by the DM.
Look at Call of Cthulhu. Skills are represented by percentages. They tell the player how good or not-so-good the character is at doing something in most situations. Imagine if instead skills were just ranked with increments of percentiles to then be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the Keeper then choosing what the chance would be in order to succeed or fail.
It is a completely different approach to skills.
One isn't objectively better than the other. I just prefer the old way. There is no need to argue about it.
Those bonuses and penalties are there to reflect situational conditions.
No, they are there to reflect some things having higher difficulty than other things. It's not a situational modifier to say "saves against a giant centipede's venom are made at +4", that's just a statement that giant centipede venom is weak.
Those bonuses and penalties are there to reflect situational conditions.
No, they are there to reflect some things having higher difficulty than other things. It's not a situational modifier to say "saves against a giant centipede's venom are made at +4", that's just a statement that giant centipede venom is weak.
I shouldn't bother to respond to your response to my first sentence until you respond to the remaining ten or so. But I will: The example you've provided is an example of a situational condition. You are providing an example of a specific encounter involving a specific monster with a specific feature that informs some adjustment to be made to the roll. If the player isn't just rolling against that fixed target number because it's not just a standard case of making a save against Death (or Poison) and the situation demands some adjustment, that is the very definition of situational and of their being some condition under which the roll will be modified. This whole tangent of yours about bonuses and penalties has completely strayed off topic and away from my main complaint about the target number not being fixed and instead being arbitrarily chosen by the DM. What a DM tells a player to add to or to subtract from a roll? That's worlds apart from the DM just arbitrarily choosing a target number. As I'm sure I make clear with the analogy about Call of Cthulhu. I think you just want to argue even though I've said more times than I can remember that no system is objectively better than another and that it is all a matter of preference. Any engagement between you and me ends here, I'm afraid.
The functional difference between "roll a d20 with a +2 circumstantial modifier vs your Save Vs Poison" and "roll a Constitution Saving throw vs DC 13" is purely semantics.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The functional difference between "roll a d20 with a +2 circumstantial modifier vs your Save Vs Poison" and "roll a Constitution Saving throw vs DC 13" is purely semantics.
The functional difference between "add or subtract this number to or from a roll vs. this fixed target number" and "roll vs. this target number I've decided upon" might seem to be semantic.
Now apply the same theory to Call of Cthulhu:
Let's say skills are no longer represented by percentages. Instead skills are now just ranked with increments of percentiles to then be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the Keeper just choosing what the chance will be in order to succeed or fail.
Are you really saying the differences between those two systems would only be a matter of semantics and they wouldn't be drastically different ways to represent as well as to resolve skills?
My preference isn't one that is semantic. It is one that is about having a fixed target number and not one that is arbitrarily chosen. There is a difference. One isn't objectively better than the other. It's a matter of preference. The end.
I'm a little baffled by the OP insistence on thinking a table is better than DC when in the end it is the same.
A lvl 1 Cleric save vs poison is 10 is the same as saying the DC against the poison is 10.
If the required number changes it is still the GM that says that it is easier or harder.
Insisting that the save should be known ahead of time and not have modifiers based on the opponent is also ridiculous. In some earlier editions it didn't matter what level the caster was, the target got the same save. Using the lvl 1 cleric again, save vs lvl 1 caster was a 15; save vs lvl 25 caster was still 15. That doesn't make any sense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I mean I get the desire to use all dice... and there are ways to do that...however as stated there are reasons why D20's are preferable to rolling other dice depending on what needs to happen. (I mean the percentages have already been mentioned so it's no worth re-hashing that).
I also however don't see anything wrong with folks who like having tables to say "this is always x". The personal problem I see with that is there are so many possibilities the need to consult all the tables (not to mention to create them) would be really really tiring. The other thing however is the fact that I don't think "x should always equal x" in terms of challenge. After all a spider you face at lower level should have a lower DC to poison you than a spider you'd face at a higher level.
I'm a little baffled by the OP insistence on thinking a table is better than DC when in the end it is the same.
A lvl 1 Cleric save vs poison is 10 is the same as saying the DC against the poison is 10.
If the required number changes it is still the GM that says that it is easier or harder.
Insisting that the save should be known ahead of time and not have modifiers based on the opponent is also ridiculous. In some earlier editions it didn't matter what level the caster was, the target got the same save. Using the lvl 1 cleric again, save vs lvl 1 caster was a 15; save vs lvl 25 caster was still 15. That doesn't make any sense.
It's not about knowing in advance what the target number should be as much as it is a target number being defined by the rules and not arbitrarily chosen by the DM.
If you're still baffled by this distinction, forget saving throws and think about skill checks: Do you not see the difference between two systems, one in which skills are represented by percentages and resolved with percentile rolls, and the other in which skills are ranked with increments of percentiles to then be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the GM just choosing what the chance will be in order to succeed or fail?
On the surface, these might seem to be essentially the same thing. They are not. One player knows his or her character has a # percent chance of doing something in most situations. The other only knows what would be added to or subtracted from a percentile roll that needs to beat a target number the GM will arbitrarily choose. The former provides a much more concrete and less abstract representation of a character's abilities. At least in my view. And I prefer that.
And I never said one system was better. I have said repeatedly this is all a matter of preference. There are things I like about 3rd ed.-5th ed. The introduction and inclusion of DCs is not one of them.
I mean I get the desire to use all dice... and there are ways to do that...however as stated there are reasons why D20's are preferable to rolling other dice depending on what needs to happen. (I mean the percentages have already been mentioned so it's no worth re-hashing that).
I also however don't see anything wrong with folks who like having tables to say "this is always x". The personal problem I see with that is there are so many possibilities the need to consult all the tables (not to mention to create them) would be really really tiring. The other thing however is the fact that I don't think "x should always equal x" in terms of challenge. After all a spider you face at lower level should have a lower DC to poison you than a spider you'd face at a higher level.
Any difference in difficulty was simply dealt with with a bonus or a penalty added to or subtracted from the roll. And a spider did have a harder time poisoning you at a higher level because at a higher level your save against Death (or Poison) had a lower target number.
Your first point is true. A DM can try to railroad things whatever the system. I just think it is more open to abuse when the DM chooses the target number and not the rules. It's a bit like allowing the DM to just decide that even though you hit an opponent's AC you didn't hit that opponent. I also think it is much more concrete and less abstract for a player to know what their chances are of doing something in most given situations. I gave the example of how weird it would be if a game like Call of Cthulhu didn't use percentages for skills but instead increments of percentiles to be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the Keeper just deciding what the percentage would be to succeed or fail.
Any bad or malicious Dungeon Master can do whatever they want with any system. It's never smart to make a rule just so terrible DMs can't abuse it, because they're in charge of the game and can be as bad or good as they want to be regardless of whatever the official books say. Not only that, but applying bonuses to rolls still gives the DM another perfect opportunity to do whatever they want and railroad players while using the rules anyways.
If the DM announces the penalty or bonus to each roll before it's made, then this will just lead to countless arguments and fights, and the game would not remain a place where the Dungeon Master can keep a friendship with those at the table.
Your other point is only half true. As bonuses and penalties were applicable to account for variety. This could simply be replaced with Advantage/Disadvantage if it's so much stress on a DM to decide whether a player needs to add or subtract one or two points to or from a roll. A DM who can't think on his or her toes even that much is probably sitting in the wrong chair at the table.
Firstly, advantage and disadvantage would not be enough to adequately get a decent result for any situations. Using that method, you would have to give the same penalty to a roll where an adventurer tries to shoot an arrow straight through the eye slit of a helmet of a dude 1,200 feet away (it's technically possible, so the dice are involved) as you would to a roll where the character is just trying to shoot a target that is the same distance away, but still 1,200 feet out.
See what I mean? Advantage and disadvantage makes it so the same character can do one thing that nears impossible and another that's just unlikely and they'll get the same penalty unless you change the system or make it so they automatically fail and can't roll. The same thing applies for rolls that are super easy - but still failable - and checks that you have a relatively minor advantage on in comparison.
Anyways, all I meant to say was that applying numeric bonuses or penalties to rolls requires more math than a set DC. Instead of thinking of the likeliness of success and picking a number based of that, the Dungeon Master will have to do some quick subtraction or addition to turn the number on that chart into a proper DC and dole out the modifier the players will use. Obviously, this isn't super hard. That being said, it erases the benefit of easier calculations for the results of rolls, which is commonly touted as the reason why table systems are supposedly better.
--
All in all, I mean no offense when a say that this system creates more problems and doesn't help the game get better in return. Play however you want in your games, but I will almost certainly never use this ruleset in mine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Your first point is true. A DM can try to railroad things whatever the system. I just think it is more open to abuse when the DM chooses the target number and not the rules. It's a bit like allowing the DM to just decide that even though you hit an opponent's AC you didn't hit that opponent. I also think it is much more concrete and less abstract for a player to know what their chances are of doing something in most given situations. I gave the example of how weird it would be if a game like Call of Cthulhu didn't use percentages for skills but instead increments of percentiles to be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the Keeper just deciding what the percentage would be to succeed or fail.
Any bad or malicious Dungeon Master can do whatever they want with any system. It's never smart to make a rule just so terrible DMs can't abuse it, because they're in charge of the game and can be as bad or good as they want to be regardless of whatever the official books say. Not only that, but applying bonuses to rolls still gives the DM another perfect opportunity to do whatever they want and railroad players while using the rules anyways.
If the DM announces the penalty or bonus to each roll before it's made, then this will just lead to countless arguments and fights, and the game would not remain a place where the Dungeon Master can keep a friendship with those at the table.
Your other point is only half true. As bonuses and penalties were applicable to account for variety. This could simply be replaced with Advantage/Disadvantage if it's so much stress on a DM to decide whether a player needs to add or subtract one or two points to or from a roll. A DM who can't think on his or her toes even that much is probably sitting in the wrong chair at the table.
Firstly, advantage and disadvantage would not be enough to adequately get a decent result for any situations. Using that method, you would have to give the same penalty to a roll where an adventurer tries to shoot an arrow straight through the eye slit of a helmet of a dude 1,200 feet away (it's technically possible, so the dice are involved) as you would to a roll where the character is just trying to shoot a target that is the same distance away, but still 1,200 feet out.
See what I mean? Advantage and disadvantage makes it so the same character can do one thing that nears impossible and another that's just unlikely and they'll get the same penalty unless you change the system or make it so they automatically fail and can't roll. The same thing applies for rolls that are super easy - but still failable - and checks that you have a relatively minor advantage on in comparison.
Anyways, all I meant to say was that applying numeric bonuses or penalties to rolls requires more math than a set DC. Instead of thinking of the likeliness of success and picking a number based of that, the Dungeon Master will have to do some quick subtraction or addition to turn the number on that chart into a proper DC and dole out the modifier the players will use. Obviously, this isn't super hard. That being said, it erases the benefit of easier calculations for the results of rolls, which is commonly touted as the reason why table systems are supposedly better.
--
All in all, I mean no offense when a say that this system creates more problems and doesn't help the game get better in return. Play however you want in your games, but I will almost certainly never use this ruleset in mine.
I wasn't being serious when I suggested replacing those bonuses or penalties with Advantage or Disadvantage. Hence the absurd suggestion it might put too much pressure on a DM for him or her to have to decide whether something would grant a +1 or a +2 bonus or a -1 or a -2 penalty.
Even now a DM might decide in the moment that a player might add his or her proficiency bonus to a roll for a skill in which the character is not proficient if the situation calls for it. Or to double it if the character already is. I prefer that than an arbitrarily chosen DC just be lowered. The former tells the player they've done a great job perhaps describing what they're going to do or say. They're not proficient in Arcane but the player has, let's say, reminded the DM how his or her character has been observing the party's Wizard closely so his or her Bard can lyrically describe the Wizard's gestures. It's like a reward. The latter is just it's now easier. They might function identically in terms of numbers. But they're not the same thing.
Obviously, this situation would more commonly be resolved by simply granting the player Advantage on the roll. But it's not unheard of for a DM to let a player just add something here and there. I play in a heavily house ruled 5th ed. campaign in which a proficiency bonus is a die and not a number. It isn't uncommon for us to be able to raise the die, from say a d4 to a d6, or to roll twice as many in special circumstances. DMs were deciding these sorts of things for over a quarter of a century before DCs came along. And some still are. And such math is nothing compared to that of some systems.
No offense taken. It could be said that the real joy of the hobby is that we do get to play how we want.
Even now a DM might decide in the moment that a player might add his or her proficiency bonus to a roll for a skill in which the character is not proficient if the situation calls for it. Or to double it if the character already is. I prefer that than an arbitrarily chosen DC just be lowered. The former tells the player they've done a great job perhaps describing what they're going to do or say. They're not proficient in Arcane but the player has, let's say, reminded the DM how his or her character has been observing the party's Wizard closely so his or her Bard can lyrically describe the Wizard's gestures. It's like a reward. The latter is just it's now easier. They might function identically in terms of numbers. But they're not the same thing.
This proposal is very different than your original one and the one I was talking about, which involved tables and percentiles. Anyways, even these suggestion is flawed: It removes more mystery and surprise from the situation, and it also might cause arguments over what the penalties and bonuses should be given to each roll.
It's not about knowing in advance what the target number should be as much as it is a target number being defined by the rules and not arbitrarily chosen by the DM.
Yeah, no.
If the Dungeon Master is in charge of doling out penalties or bonuses to rules, then the the rulebook in your hands is not in charge of the end results stemming from those dice. In other words, the DM clearly controls this either way, and they must do so in order to ensure and operate a semi-functional system.
Also, the DMs are the rules. They make rules. They change rules. They decide how to interpret rules. And they make the game. A statement along the lines of "this should be defined by the rules not the DM" makes no sense, because the two are effectively synonymous and deeply interconnected.
Thirdly, Difficulty Classes aren't "arbitrarily chosen by the DM: They are picked to reflect the situation and what is happening, just like the modifiers in this system would be.
Do you not see the difference between two systems, one in which skills are represented by percentages and resolved with percentile rolls, and the other in which skills are ranked with increments of percentiles to then be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the GM just choosing what the chance will be in order to succeed or fail?
[...]One player knows his or her character has a # percent chance of doing something in most situations. The other only knows what would be added to or subtracted from a percentile roll that needs to beat a target number the GM will arbitrarily choose. The former provides a much more concrete and less abstract representation of a character's abilities.
I am slightly confused, since you've talked about what appears to be 3 different ideas for a system like this and mechanics in your last couple of posts. Anyways, I'll assume that you're talking about a set of tables listing the probability of success for each class, proficiency modifier, skill and level (!) with suggestions for DMs on what penalties and bonuses to give each roll.
This system would be nearly identical to the current one in most ways, but it would introduce a few changes. Most of these are quite problematic:
Players would now know how likely their rolls were to succeed and fail. Some say this is a good thing, but for certain checks, it might not be good at all. For instance, the players say, "Let's investigate this statue to see if it's secretly magical!" The Dungeon Master then tells them that they have a -10 to their percentile check, which makes them extremely suspicious, and causes them to examine the item again and again.
Players and Dungeon Masters would likely fight over the modifiers, and this could lead to conflicts that could escalate and end games. More importantly, this could end friendships for some people, because knowing what the DM is doing to your roll doesn't always go well with a lot of players who might disagree with the ruling, despite not knowing all the facts of the situation. Trust me, your decisions are questioned a lot when you're in charge of the game. This would only make things worse.
You have to think on the fly by quickly settling on a bonus or penalty and comparing it to the tables in the books. This is more difficult than deciding a difficulty class, because you have to effectively figure out the difficulty by subtracting or adding it to the percentile table and then averaging the chances of success and/or failure out. With set DCs, it's way easier to do this. The increased pressure from players in some groups and the bit of extra math would make Dungeon Mastering more difficult and more stressful, and it would make the game less fun for us and encourage less people to take up the mantle of DM.
With these tables, it's often harder to differentiate between half successes - or successes with complications - and outright successes or failures. On some rolls, this might not matter, but it might cause the Dungeon Master to just give flat yes or nos to certain things, which would make the game duller and less interesting. Not only that, but different skill checks have different probabilities of results like this, and you have to go through more hoops to make this work and make sure your players are all right with it than you would for the current DC system.
All in all, I came up with the best possible system based off your frequently changing suggestions, and it still was incredibly flawed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I am slightly confused, since you've talked about what appears to be 3 different ideas for a system like this and mechanics in your last couple of posts. Anyways, I'll assume that you're talking about a set of tables listing the probability of success for each class, proficiency modifier, skill and level (!) with suggestions for DMs on what penalties and bonuses to give each roll.
Never just assume.
Have you never played RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer or any other game that uses percentages to represent mastery of skills?
The point in explaining those two different systems, one in which the player has # percent chance of doing something, comparable to a fixed target number to be found on a table determined by class and level, say for thief skills, the other in which the player just adds increments of percentiles, comparable to the sum of the relevant stat and one's proficiency bonus, to a percentile roll against a percentage decided by the DM, is to show how different they are in their representation and resolution of skills. Because some in this thread have been insisting there is no real difference between having a fixed target number and one decided by the DM.
The former of those two systems has served players of Chaosium's games just fine for over thirty years. The latter wouldn't be the worst system. I'm sure there's a game out there somewhere that uses it.
I also brought up this distinction to help explain why I think the old way is a more concrete and less abstract treatment of skills. This thief has a # percent chance of doing this thing in most situations just seems to me to say something more concrete than that thief will get to add or subtract this number to or from a roll against a target number the DM will determine when the situation arises. There is a fluidity to the concept of the DC that has merit. Particularly when it does come to making adjustments to allow for situational conditions. This can, as you say, lighten the load for the DM. I just find the concept too light. Like it's more about an impulse than a rule. In my view. It is a matter of preference.
Players given to taking things so personally and getting into fights over decisions made by the DM, when the very same thing can happen when the DM decides to afford one player Advantage for something but not another who feels what they did or said ought to have earned them one, are the sorts of players no one wants at their table. But your objections on that front are objections that can be leveled against the whole concept of the DC. Fights could just as easily break out because players think the DM is setting unfairly high DCs just to railroad things. The DM might tell a player to roll to see if they succeed or fail at something, and the player rolls not a natural 20 but above and beyond 20, and the DM says the player has still not matched or exceeded the target number they've decided on, and the player and others at the table might suspect the DM has just gone and arbitrarily decided this or even gone and raised the target number they'd considered just to railroad things. This was, in fact, a point made in the original post.
It's not about knowing in advance what the target number should be as much as it is a target number being defined by the rules and not arbitrarily chosen by the DM.
If you're still baffled by this distinction, forget saving throws and think about skill checks: Do you not see the difference between two systems, one in which skills are represented by percentages and resolved with percentile rolls, and the other in which skills are ranked with increments of percentiles to then be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the GM just choosing what the chance will be in order to succeed or fail?
On the surface, these might seem to be essentially the same thing. They are not. One player knows his or her character has a # percent chance of doing something in most situations. The other only knows what would be added to or subtracted from a percentile roll that needs to beat a target number the GM will arbitrarily choose. The former provides a much more concrete and less abstract representation of a character's abilities. At least in my view. And I prefer that.
I have to say that I have never experienced the issue you seem to have. You keep saying that the DM just arbitrarily makes up the target number (with the intent of insuring an intended outcome) but that really shouldn't be the case. Most things that happens have a set DC, either from the spell, item, class feature or from whatever rule it is that forces/allows you to do the thing you are doing. For example you mentioned poisons before, there are quite a lot of effects that can poison a character but they say what the DC is. A Potion of Poison has a DC 13 to save, a Dagger of Venom has a DC 15 and a Giant Coral Snake had a DC 12 while a Acererak has a DC 20 (against being paralysed). A standard Lock is a DC 15 to pick (but better locks can have a higher DC) while a Lock of Trickery has the same DC but adds disadvantage and Manacles also has the same DC (but a DC 20 to get out of them through strength or dexterity].
This is just a small sample of things where the rules gives us a clear DC to beat, for stuff that doesn't have a specified DC then the "easy" - "hard" - "impossible" table that has been linked already gives clear guidance on what an appropriate DC would be. Sure any DC (specified or not) can be changed by the DM if he feels that is necessary but that rarely happens in my experience, giving out advantage/disadvantage when it fits the circumstances is far more common. The only time I can remember that a DM have decided completely arbitrarily on a DC is when a player has done some completely improvised and inventive shit that the designers never imagined someone would do.
So I guess I have to ask the same as most others have, if the DM in your games are intentionally railroading you/other players how can that be a problem with the system and not a problem with the DM?
Since I had cause to edit it, here is the Degrees of Difficulty table I use as a general rule of thumb. Note that we say "nothing is impossible" because it is fantasy, but in the world they sorta think things are -- and then prove they aren't.
Degrees of Difficulty
Child’s Play
1 to2
Piece of Cake
3 to 4
Very Easy
5 to 6
Easy
7 to 8
Common
9 to 10
Challenging
11 to 12
Tricky
13 to 14
Difficult
15 to 16
Hard
17 to 18
Involved
28 to 20
Very Hard
21 to 22
Extremely Hard
23 to 24
Wicked Hard
25 to 26
Improbable
27 to 28
Impossible
29 to 30
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Your first point is true. A DM can try to railroad things whatever the system. I just think it is more open to abuse when the DM chooses the target number and not the rules. It's a bit like allowing the DM to just decide that even though you hit an opponent's AC you didn't hit that opponent. I also think it is much more concrete and less abstract for a player to know what their chances are of doing something in most given situations. I gave the example of how weird it would be if a game like Call of Cthulhu didn't use percentages for skills but instead increments of percentiles to be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the Keeper just deciding what the percentage would be to succeed or fail.
Your other point is only half true. As bonuses and penalties were applicable to account for variety. This could simply be replaced with Advantage/Disadvantage if it's so much stress on a DM to decide whether a player needs to add or subtract one or two points to or from a roll. A DM who can't think on his or her toes even that much is probably sitting in the wrong chair at the table.
I like the d20 system. It's a good feature that most game systems work the same way. Earlier version with some things being "d20, roll under", some things being "d20 roll over", some being "2d6" some being "d%" were difficult to learn and, more often than not, the system got in the way of the game.
Now we have a unified system:
Roll a d20. Add a number for the character's physical statistics (ability score mod). Add a number for their experience, skill and knowledge (proficiency bonus). Maybe add a number for tools or the lack thereof, or for some feature of the environment.
Is the total equal to or greater than the target? Then you succeed. Otherwise you don't.
What's the target number? 10 for an easy task, 15 for a medium task, 20 for a hard task, and so on.
Remember that this all fits in the core gameplay loop of an RPG.
1. The GM describes the scene.
2. The players describe their characters' goals (what they want to achieve) and their approaches (how they are trying to do it, what tools and resources and knowledge they are using).
3. The GM determines if the approach succeeds, fails, or has a chance either way.
3a. If a chance either way, then someone makes a random resolution (in D&D 5E, using the d20 mechanic above).
4. The GM narrates the outcome (the results of the characters' actions ) and consequences (how the world changes in response to those actions, whether successful or not).
5. Goto 1.
The RPG Everway explained step 3 in terms of karma, drama and fortune. Karma meant, "does the character deserve to succeed based on their skills, talents, experience, background, and/or knowledge?" Drama meant, "Does it suit the story that the character succeed?" Fortune meant random resolution, using a special deck of cards known as the Fortune Deck.
The DM always chooses the target number, regardless of edition, because he's the one who decided what the challenge was in the first place.
If you can't see the difference between the DM telling the player the character has just drunk poison and the player then needing to to make a save against a target number provided in a table and the DM telling the player the same has happened and to make a save but the DM gets to come up with the target number, I really don't know what to tell you. But I'm sure you've a gold medal awaiting you if you compete in the gymnastics in Paris in 2024!
In AD&D, I would just say "make a save against poison at +2" or "make a save against poison at -4" or whatever; there are plenty of examples of poisons with save modifiers.
Those bonuses and penalties are there to reflect situational conditions. Much like Advantage and Disadvantage do in the current edition. So what? That goes nowhere towards addressing what I'm actually talking about: the difference between a target number established by one's class and level and one that is just chosen by the DM.
Look at Call of Cthulhu. Skills are represented by percentages. They tell the player how good or not-so-good the character is at doing something in most situations. Imagine if instead skills were just ranked with increments of percentiles to then be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the Keeper then choosing what the chance would be in order to succeed or fail.
It is a completely different approach to skills.
One isn't objectively better than the other. I just prefer the old way. There is no need to argue about it.
No, they are there to reflect some things having higher difficulty than other things. It's not a situational modifier to say "saves against a giant centipede's venom are made at +4", that's just a statement that giant centipede venom is weak.
I shouldn't bother to respond to your response to my first sentence until you respond to the remaining ten or so. But I will: The example you've provided is an example of a situational condition. You are providing an example of a specific encounter involving a specific monster with a specific feature that informs some adjustment to be made to the roll. If the player isn't just rolling against that fixed target number because it's not just a standard case of making a save against Death (or Poison) and the situation demands some adjustment, that is the very definition of situational and of their being some condition under which the roll will be modified. This whole tangent of yours about bonuses and penalties has completely strayed off topic and away from my main complaint about the target number not being fixed and instead being arbitrarily chosen by the DM. What a DM tells a player to add to or to subtract from a roll? That's worlds apart from the DM just arbitrarily choosing a target number. As I'm sure I make clear with the analogy about Call of Cthulhu. I think you just want to argue even though I've said more times than I can remember that no system is objectively better than another and that it is all a matter of preference. Any engagement between you and me ends here, I'm afraid.
The functional difference between "roll a d20 with a +2 circumstantial modifier vs your Save Vs Poison" and "roll a Constitution Saving throw vs DC 13" is purely semantics.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
The functional difference between "add or subtract this number to or from a roll vs. this fixed target number" and "roll vs. this target number I've decided upon" might seem to be semantic.
Now apply the same theory to Call of Cthulhu:
Let's say skills are no longer represented by percentages. Instead skills are now just ranked with increments of percentiles to then be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the Keeper just choosing what the chance will be in order to succeed or fail.
Are you really saying the differences between those two systems would only be a matter of semantics and they wouldn't be drastically different ways to represent as well as to resolve skills?
My preference isn't one that is semantic. It is one that is about having a fixed target number and not one that is arbitrarily chosen. There is a difference. One isn't objectively better than the other. It's a matter of preference. The end.
I'm a little baffled by the OP insistence on thinking a table is better than DC when in the end it is the same.
A lvl 1 Cleric save vs poison is 10 is the same as saying the DC against the poison is 10.
If the required number changes it is still the GM that says that it is easier or harder.
Insisting that the save should be known ahead of time and not have modifiers based on the opponent is also ridiculous. In some earlier editions it didn't matter what level the caster was, the target got the same save. Using the lvl 1 cleric again, save vs lvl 1 caster was a 15; save vs lvl 25 caster was still 15. That doesn't make any sense.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
I mean I get the desire to use all dice... and there are ways to do that...however as stated there are reasons why D20's are preferable to rolling other dice depending on what needs to happen. (I mean the percentages have already been mentioned so it's no worth re-hashing that).
I also however don't see anything wrong with folks who like having tables to say "this is always x". The personal problem I see with that is there are so many possibilities the need to consult all the tables (not to mention to create them) would be really really tiring. The other thing however is the fact that I don't think "x should always equal x" in terms of challenge.
After all a spider you face at lower level should have a lower DC to poison you than a spider you'd face at a higher level.
It's not about knowing in advance what the target number should be as much as it is a target number being defined by the rules and not arbitrarily chosen by the DM.
If you're still baffled by this distinction, forget saving throws and think about skill checks: Do you not see the difference between two systems, one in which skills are represented by percentages and resolved with percentile rolls, and the other in which skills are ranked with increments of percentiles to then be added to or subtracted from percentile rolls with the GM just choosing what the chance will be in order to succeed or fail?
On the surface, these might seem to be essentially the same thing. They are not. One player knows his or her character has a # percent chance of doing something in most situations. The other only knows what would be added to or subtracted from a percentile roll that needs to beat a target number the GM will arbitrarily choose. The former provides a much more concrete and less abstract representation of a character's abilities. At least in my view. And I prefer that.
And I never said one system was better. I have said repeatedly this is all a matter of preference. There are things I like about 3rd ed.-5th ed. The introduction and inclusion of DCs is not one of them.
Any difference in difficulty was simply dealt with with a bonus or a penalty added to or subtracted from the roll. And a spider did have a harder time poisoning you at a higher level because at a higher level your save against Death (or Poison) had a lower target number.
Any bad or malicious Dungeon Master can do whatever they want with any system. It's never smart to make a rule just so terrible DMs can't abuse it, because they're in charge of the game and can be as bad or good as they want to be regardless of whatever the official books say. Not only that, but applying bonuses to rolls still gives the DM another perfect opportunity to do whatever they want and railroad players while using the rules anyways.
If the DM announces the penalty or bonus to each roll before it's made, then this will just lead to countless arguments and fights, and the game would not remain a place where the Dungeon Master can keep a friendship with those at the table.
Firstly, advantage and disadvantage would not be enough to adequately get a decent result for any situations. Using that method, you would have to give the same penalty to a roll where an adventurer tries to shoot an arrow straight through the eye slit of a helmet of a dude 1,200 feet away (it's technically possible, so the dice are involved) as you would to a roll where the character is just trying to shoot a target that is the same distance away, but still 1,200 feet out.
See what I mean? Advantage and disadvantage makes it so the same character can do one thing that nears impossible and another that's just unlikely and they'll get the same penalty unless you change the system or make it so they automatically fail and can't roll. The same thing applies for rolls that are super easy - but still failable - and checks that you have a relatively minor advantage on in comparison.
Anyways, all I meant to say was that applying numeric bonuses or penalties to rolls requires more math than a set DC. Instead of thinking of the likeliness of success and picking a number based of that, the Dungeon Master will have to do some quick subtraction or addition to turn the number on that chart into a proper DC and dole out the modifier the players will use. Obviously, this isn't super hard. That being said, it erases the benefit of easier calculations for the results of rolls, which is commonly touted as the reason why table systems are supposedly better.
--
All in all, I mean no offense when a say that this system creates more problems and doesn't help the game get better in return. Play however you want in your games, but I will almost certainly never use this ruleset in mine.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I wasn't being serious when I suggested replacing those bonuses or penalties with Advantage or Disadvantage. Hence the absurd suggestion it might put too much pressure on a DM for him or her to have to decide whether something would grant a +1 or a +2 bonus or a -1 or a -2 penalty.
Even now a DM might decide in the moment that a player might add his or her proficiency bonus to a roll for a skill in which the character is not proficient if the situation calls for it. Or to double it if the character already is. I prefer that than an arbitrarily chosen DC just be lowered. The former tells the player they've done a great job perhaps describing what they're going to do or say. They're not proficient in Arcane but the player has, let's say, reminded the DM how his or her character has been observing the party's Wizard closely so his or her Bard can lyrically describe the Wizard's gestures. It's like a reward. The latter is just it's now easier. They might function identically in terms of numbers. But they're not the same thing.
Obviously, this situation would more commonly be resolved by simply granting the player Advantage on the roll. But it's not unheard of for a DM to let a player just add something here and there. I play in a heavily house ruled 5th ed. campaign in which a proficiency bonus is a die and not a number. It isn't uncommon for us to be able to raise the die, from say a d4 to a d6, or to roll twice as many in special circumstances. DMs were deciding these sorts of things for over a quarter of a century before DCs came along. And some still are. And such math is nothing compared to that of some systems.
No offense taken. It could be said that the real joy of the hobby is that we do get to play how we want.
This proposal is very different than your original one and the one I was talking about, which involved tables and percentiles. Anyways, even these suggestion is flawed: It removes more mystery and surprise from the situation, and it also might cause arguments over what the penalties and bonuses should be given to each roll.
Yeah, no.
If the Dungeon Master is in charge of doling out penalties or bonuses to rules, then the the rulebook in your hands is not in charge of the end results stemming from those dice. In other words, the DM clearly controls this either way, and they must do so in order to ensure and operate a semi-functional system.
Also, the DMs are the rules. They make rules. They change rules. They decide how to interpret rules. And they make the game. A statement along the lines of "this should be defined by the rules not the DM" makes no sense, because the two are effectively synonymous and deeply interconnected.
Thirdly, Difficulty Classes aren't "arbitrarily chosen by the DM: They are picked to reflect the situation and what is happening, just like the modifiers in this system would be.
I am slightly confused, since you've talked about what appears to be 3 different ideas for a system like this and mechanics in your last couple of posts. Anyways, I'll assume that you're talking about a set of tables listing the probability of success for each class, proficiency modifier, skill and level (!) with suggestions for DMs on what penalties and bonuses to give each roll.
This system would be nearly identical to the current one in most ways, but it would introduce a few changes. Most of these are quite problematic:
All in all, I came up with the best possible system based off your frequently changing suggestions, and it still was incredibly flawed.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Never just assume.
Have you never played RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu, Stormbringer or any other game that uses percentages to represent mastery of skills?
The point in explaining those two different systems, one in which the player has # percent chance of doing something, comparable to a fixed target number to be found on a table determined by class and level, say for thief skills, the other in which the player just adds increments of percentiles, comparable to the sum of the relevant stat and one's proficiency bonus, to a percentile roll against a percentage decided by the DM, is to show how different they are in their representation and resolution of skills. Because some in this thread have been insisting there is no real difference between having a fixed target number and one decided by the DM.
The former of those two systems has served players of Chaosium's games just fine for over thirty years. The latter wouldn't be the worst system. I'm sure there's a game out there somewhere that uses it.
I also brought up this distinction to help explain why I think the old way is a more concrete and less abstract treatment of skills. This thief has a # percent chance of doing this thing in most situations just seems to me to say something more concrete than that thief will get to add or subtract this number to or from a roll against a target number the DM will determine when the situation arises. There is a fluidity to the concept of the DC that has merit. Particularly when it does come to making adjustments to allow for situational conditions. This can, as you say, lighten the load for the DM. I just find the concept too light. Like it's more about an impulse than a rule. In my view. It is a matter of preference.
Players given to taking things so personally and getting into fights over decisions made by the DM, when the very same thing can happen when the DM decides to afford one player Advantage for something but not another who feels what they did or said ought to have earned them one, are the sorts of players no one wants at their table. But your objections on that front are objections that can be leveled against the whole concept of the DC. Fights could just as easily break out because players think the DM is setting unfairly high DCs just to railroad things. The DM might tell a player to roll to see if they succeed or fail at something, and the player rolls not a natural 20 but above and beyond 20, and the DM says the player has still not matched or exceeded the target number they've decided on, and the player and others at the table might suspect the DM has just gone and arbitrarily decided this or even gone and raised the target number they'd considered just to railroad things. This was, in fact, a point made in the original post.
I have to say that I have never experienced the issue you seem to have. You keep saying that the DM just arbitrarily makes up the target number (with the intent of insuring an intended outcome) but that really shouldn't be the case. Most things that happens have a set DC, either from the spell, item, class feature or from whatever rule it is that forces/allows you to do the thing you are doing. For example you mentioned poisons before, there are quite a lot of effects that can poison a character but they say what the DC is. A Potion of Poison has a DC 13 to save, a Dagger of Venom has a DC 15 and a Giant Coral Snake had a DC 12 while a Acererak has a DC 20 (against being paralysed). A standard Lock is a DC 15 to pick (but better locks can have a higher DC) while a Lock of Trickery has the same DC but adds disadvantage and Manacles also has the same DC (but a DC 20 to get out of them through strength or dexterity].
This is just a small sample of things where the rules gives us a clear DC to beat, for stuff that doesn't have a specified DC then the "easy" - "hard" - "impossible" table that has been linked already gives clear guidance on what an appropriate DC would be. Sure any DC (specified or not) can be changed by the DM if he feels that is necessary but that rarely happens in my experience, giving out advantage/disadvantage when it fits the circumstances is far more common. The only time I can remember that a DM have decided completely arbitrarily on a DC is when a player has done some completely improvised and inventive shit that the designers never imagined someone would do.
So I guess I have to ask the same as most others have, if the DM in your games are intentionally railroading you/other players how can that be a problem with the system and not a problem with the DM?
Since I had cause to edit it, here is the Degrees of Difficulty table I use as a general rule of thumb. Note that we say "nothing is impossible" because it is fantasy, but in the world they sorta think things are -- and then prove they aren't.
Degrees of Difficulty
Child’s Play
1 to2
Piece of Cake
3 to 4
Very Easy
5 to 6
Easy
7 to 8
Common
9 to 10
Challenging
11 to 12
Tricky
13 to 14
Difficult
15 to 16
Hard
17 to 18
Involved
28 to 20
Very Hard
21 to 22
Extremely Hard
23 to 24
Wicked Hard
25 to 26
Improbable
27 to 28
Impossible
29 to 30
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds