I understand that players have an understanding of "do what the DM tells you", but how does the DM know for example when a proficiency would prevent or allow a roll?
They don't have to know that. What they have to know is what the book says - "Players shouldn’t just roll ability checks without context; they should tell you what their characters are trying to achieve, and make ability checks only if you ask them to." That's all.
And again, this is a problem of your own making. "I don't think an 18 Int warrior with no proficiency should be able to get a higher Arcana result than a less intelligent spellcaster with proficiency." So... call for your rolls accordingly. You're taking a scenario that you personally find incongruous or problematic, and then asking how everyone else would be expected to solve that problem, without stopping to consider whether other groups would even see it as a problem in the first place.
because for some reason we are making an assumption that its common knowledge to know how to rule the game via DM fiat without any training, knowledge or instructions simply based on text that says "just have fun".
It's based on knowing how dice work. Whenever you call for a roll, you're inviting the chance that the person with lower modifiers can have a higher result or vice-versa. If you don't find those outcomes fun, the game already gave you the tools to avoid that (advantage/disadvantage, not rolling, adjudicating results differently etc.) Use them.
I understand that players have an understanding of "do what the DM tells you", but how does the DM know for example when a proficiency would prevent or allow a roll?
They don't have to know that. What they have to know is what the book says - "Players shouldn’t just roll ability checks without context; they should tell you what their characters are trying to achieve, and make ability checks only if you ask them to." That's all.
And again, this is a problem of your own making. "I don't think an 18 Int warrior with no proficiency should be able to get a higher Arcana result than a less intelligent spellcaster with proficiency." So... call for your rolls accordingly. You're taking a scenario that you personally find incongruous or problematic, and then asking how everyone else would be expected to solve that problem, without stopping to consider whether other groups would even see it as a problem in the first place.
because for some reason we are making an assumption that its common knowledge to know how to rule the game via DM fiat without any training, knowledge or instructions simply based on text that says "just have fun".
It's based on knowing how dice work. Whenever you call for a roll, you're inviting the chance that the person with lower modifiers can have a higher result or vice-versa. If you don't find those outcomes fun, the game already gave you the tools to avoid that (advantage/disadvantage, not rolling, adjudicating results differently etc.) Use them.
I understand what you're saying and here is the thing, I don't even really disagree with it, but I disagree on one point which is that any of that is intuitive or beginner-friendly.
The rules we are talking about and what you derived from those rules don't match up at all. Rules are instructions, they tell you what to do, how to do it, and when to do it and these rules don't do any of that. The implication is in what the rules omit, what they don't say is where you are deriving the instructions on what you can do or what can't be done.
I agree with you that the rules don't actually tell you how you can and can't use proficiencies, or what proficiencies do or don't mean or how they are and aren't applied, the instructions are "you are the DM, do whatever feels right".
From those rules how do you decide when a proficiency allows a roll and when the absence of a proficiency means you don't get one? How does that rule tell you that if you have proficiency and succeed on the skill check the results might or are different than succeeding on a check if you don't have the proficiency?
These "rulings" are allowed, through the omission of anything suggesting that it's against the rules, so a DM, through DM fiat, can simply rule and make those decisions and still be functioning within the rules (which notably is something I actually do-do, in my own games) but what I disagree with..again.. is that any of that is intuitive or beginner friendly.
The rules basically say "You the DM decide when someone gets a skill check and you can make that decision using any logic you like".. there are no instructions, advice or condition considerations like proficiency built into that definition. So the rules are hyper-permissive, but hardly instructional. The assumption that DM's will figure this out or come to some sort of consensus on how this will work I think is very presumptuous and this isn't because new DM's are stupid, its that DM's and players will not agree on how these omissions "should" be implemented.
The new DMG has much better overall guidance than the 2014 version, yet the number of people playing the game has only grown over the last 10 years. Maybe the players you are stressing over will be just fine.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
All true... for experienced DM's. What your asking/saying requires a deeper and more meaningful understanding by the DM as it requires both some consistency and the ability to respond to challenges to this DM fiat authority you are claiming, which is fine for experienced DM's but to assume that a novice DM would derive all that from a reading of the book is a real stretch.
Which is kind of the point, the reality is that most DM's are not going to do this, they are going run the game RAW without this internal interpretation and sort of secret language living between the sheets of D&D based on 50 years of narrative logic.
I get what your saying, and I agree with you, its how I do it... but how do you pass that on to a generation of players that has no point of reference? Would you assume a novice DM would know any of that or come to that interpretative conclusion based on the reading of the rules?
I have serious doubts about that.
"Secret language?" Everything I quoted is right there on the page in plain sight. I don't think you're going to get very far by underestimating players to this extreme degree. Again, Baldurs Gate 3 got literally millions of people who'd never played D&D before to figure this stuff out, and they didn't even HAVE a DM to help them; advantage and autosuccess based on background or class is pretty intuitive stuff. So I find your fearmongering here to be beyond overblown.
Sure but every person that played D&D using Baulders Gate 3 was a player, not a DM. I understand that players have an understanding of "do what the DM tells you", but how does the DM know for example when a proficiency would prevent or allow a roll? That is not a rule or instruction, its simply assumed that the DM would "know"...somehow...because for some reason we are making an assumption that its common knowledge to know how to rule the game via DM fiat without any training, knowledge or instructions simply based on text that says "just have fun".
I think you’re underestimating the intelligence of new DMs. I’ve been playing for 4 years, DMing for almost as long, and managed to figure out all of that stuff by reading the books, watching Critical Role and watching YouTube videos on how to DM. As someone said earlier (either here or in the almost identical thread that popped up at the same time) most modern DMs and players aren’t just learning from reading the rule books, they’re not even really coming here as recent forum polls have shown, they’re heading to Reddit, YouTube and Tiktok for how to play
Critical Role does not limit who can do what based on skill or proficiency, in fact more often then not the least skilled person at the table at a thing will roll for it because they are the one who asked to do it. With Matt setting a limit of 2 players attempting a thing generally (although in campaign 3 that rule has become a lot more flexible), He also used to use group skill checks a lot more then he does now, that is a very 3.5e and pathfinder thing that DnD mentioned in the DMG but as with all the best things didn;t put much emphasis on, it is again mentioned as an aside in the 2024 rules. With the new 2024 rules the focus is a lot more on anyone can do anything, and players then think getting the best skilled player to do that thing is meta gaming.
The new Rules and the new DMG do not help and they should, if you are buying a product and saying, "but really go online and see how other people play the game rather then read this" then again I will argue the rules are inherently flawed and therefore so is the system.
yes anyone can come into DnD and apply either there experience from other systems (def me), experience in life (interest in improv etc), or what they have seen on You Tube, but, that should not be a prerequisite to get the most out of the game.
This is why I dislike the new rulebook and the new DMG, if you compare it to other systems and the way they explain and describe the game DnD has no right to be as successful as it is, with 2024 WOTC had a real chance to be better, and yes there are very real mechanical improvements, but, the game as a whole that sits in the pages of the rulebook has been made worse (in my opinion) if you play it strictly rules as written because the emphasis is on the combat and not the other 2 Pillars that WOTC goes on about. You cant even say that they are given equal place in the rules, everything is shifted towards DnD being a combat engine, and that is fine, it is a valid game system to want to play, but WOTC should not try and pretend otherwise. If they want a more full rounded experiance then give more detail, more rules and more flavour that helps outside of combat, the old 2014 book at least gave brand new players.a bunch of tables and details with backgrounds, classes etc that would help them create a rounded character. Now if you go from the rulebook your starting character might be a sailor, who is on paper exactly the same as any other background except with a different set of mechanical skills.
Critical Role does not limit who can do what based on skill or proficiency
Matt has absolutely limited skill checks to people with proficiency in that skill. He doesn't do it often, but it has happened
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Critical Role does not limit who can do what based on skill or proficiency
Matt has absolutely limited skill checks to people with proficiency in that skill. He doesn't do it often, but it has happened
That is kind of the point though. When a rule says "do whatever you want", its really not a rule or even a recommendation, its basically a DM fiat. Personally I'm fine with that, but you will end up with inconsistency where "sometimes" you do something and "sometimes" you don't. That inconsistency can lead to issues at the table. Why does Matt for example sometimes limit a skill check based on proficiency and sometimes he does not? What is the basis of that? How does a new DM know why Matt sometimes does it and sometimes doesn't? How does a player?
Again, I can't stress enough how I actually don't mind this at all, but when your at my table and I rule one way one time and another way another time, you have to be willing to accept that the DM is god, they decide what is true and when its true, they reserve their right to change their mind and they are not required to offer any explanation on any decision...ever. That is the only way a system like this can ever be implemented and so far as I can tell that is objectively contrary to everything modern D&D stands for.
That is however EXACTLY how this rule works and what it assumes. The DM is god, they rule all and this is RAW.
Critical Role does not limit who can do what based on skill or proficiency
Matt has absolutely limited skill checks to people with proficiency in that skill. He doesn't do it often, but it has happened
Your right I think he has my mistake but can't think of examples off the top of my head, generally a lot of the time in later campaigns the players will ask if they can do something, or know something, and use there knowledge of there character history to know if they might have a sense (Liam will often ask if Orym has knowledge of the events of Vox Machina etc),
Again this is something outside of the suggestions or rules in the book, or the advice in the DMG, so you have a history skill with a description, no where does it state "players should only be able to learn or know information it is logical for there characters to know" This could lead, understandably, to a DM and Player assuming that every History role must have a chance of uncovering information and all Proficiency will do is add to the modifier.
Doing anything outside of this is the DM interpreting the rules (and this we know makes the game better).
Now I don't think the players handbook is the right place for this nuance, I have always seen it that the Handbook teaches the mechanics of the game, the DMG then helps teach the flavour and nuance by suggesting how the DM can apply the rules in certain situations, how they can flex and flavour things to help drive the narrative elements, and how they can give the players a sense of the limitations and the walls of the sandbox in the world.
Having now read the new DMG, it is improved, but still lacks that element, deciding instead to waste 40 pages on Greyhawk and 30 pages on the cosmic wheel. neither of which helps a DM run a better game. It again comes really close to really pushing the game forward. Taking inspiration finally from Powered by the Apocalypse and including rules for more complex success failure mechanics is a great step forward and one that I think should have been in the core rules, not included as a potential add on, but even this is applied badly with not enough space given to explain and explore the approach, meaning if you haven't played a PbtA game then you have very little chance of really knowing how to apply these pretty powerful rules adjustments to your games.
All true... for experienced DM's. What your asking/saying requires a deeper and more meaningful understanding by the DM as it requires both some consistency and the ability to respond to challenges to this DM fiat authority you are claiming, which is fine for experienced DM's but to assume that a novice DM would derive all that from a reading of the book is a real stretch.
Which is kind of the point, the reality is that most DM's are not going to do this, they are going run the game RAW without this internal interpretation and sort of secret language living between the sheets of D&D based on 50 years of narrative logic.
I get what your saying, and I agree with you, its how I do it... but how do you pass that on to a generation of players that has no point of reference? Would you assume a novice DM would know any of that or come to that interpretative conclusion based on the reading of the rules?
I have serious doubts about that.
"Secret language?" Everything I quoted is right there on the page in plain sight. I don't think you're going to get very far by underestimating players to this extreme degree. Again, Baldurs Gate 3 got literally millions of people who'd never played D&D before to figure this stuff out, and they didn't even HAVE a DM to help them; advantage and autosuccess based on background or class is pretty intuitive stuff. So I find your fearmongering here to be beyond overblown.
Sure but every person that played D&D using Baulders Gate 3 was a player, not a DM. I understand that players have an understanding of "do what the DM tells you", but how does the DM know for example when a proficiency would prevent or allow a roll? That is not a rule or instruction, its simply assumed that the DM would "know"...somehow...because for some reason we are making an assumption that its common knowledge to know how to rule the game via DM fiat without any training, knowledge or instructions simply based on text that says "just have fun".
I think you’re underestimating the intelligence of new DMs. I’ve been playing for 4 years, DMing for almost as long, and managed to figure out all of that stuff by reading the books, watching Critical Role and watching YouTube videos on how to DM. As someone said earlier (either here or in the almost identical thread that popped up at the same time) most modern DMs and players aren’t just learning from reading the rule books, they’re not even really coming here as recent forum polls have shown, they’re heading to Reddit, YouTube and Tiktok for how to play
The new Rules and the new DMG do not help and they should, if you are buying a product and saying, "but really go online and see how other people play the game rather then read this" then again I will argue the rules are inherently flawed and therefore so is the system.
yes anyone can come into DnD and apply either there experience from other systems (def me), experience in life (interest in improv etc), or what they have seen on You Tube, but, that should not be a prerequisite to get the most out of the game.
I think you misunderstood me, I didn’t say you *have* to go online, I know plenty of people who’ve learnt to DM using nothing but the books (I know a few who’ve never read beyond the free rules in the Starter Sets and they run great games) I’m saying people will go online to learn whether you think they should have to or not because that’s just how people learn in 2024. People don’t read, they rely on YouTube and TikTok to explain everything from D&D to home improvement and that’s a big part of why WotC is pushing online tools, YouTube videos promoting the new rules and live plays so hard.
And as someone said above the game is more popular than its ever been, with more players than it’s ever had, so I don’t think people are struggling as hard as you and OSR4Ever seem to think
FWIW, technically, the DMG says that you can only make (for example) a Strength (Athletics) check if you have proficiency in Athletics. It says that, otherwise, the DM calls for a regular Strength check. "You might specifically ask for an Intelligence (Arcana) check, or you can ask for an Intelligence check and let the player negotiate with you to see if one of the character’s skill or tool proficiencies applies."
There's plenty of room for DM freedom, and many DMs might ignore this wording, but it's literally establishing the language that the "[Ability] ([Proficiency])" syntax requires [Proficiency].
Thing is, DMs run the game (and players play the game) as they imagine it in their head, possibly drawing from older editions and ancient lineages of homebrew and oral tradition. It's probably unfair to say that's the fault of the new books.
I can relate to this a lot, but I think it can be more generically described to say that the game just has a lot of disassociative mechanics already in the 2014 edition and they have gone further down the road in many ways in the 2024 edition. It's rapidly fumbling its way to becoming a generic RPG system, rather than being specific or committed to something.
Class archetypes no longer exist at all, backgrounds are caricatures, you pick the one that gives you the bonuses you need and very little of what you get from it has anything to do with the background itself. Very little distinguishes species from one another, but perhaps more egregious is that skills have universal uses that can turn any class into an expert in anything, so there are no splits or divisions, areas of expertise or some method in which the classes distinguish themselves. A Dwarf Cleric can be as good a Ranger as a Ranger can, a Orc Barbarian can know as much about magic as a Elven Wizard. etc.. etc..
In a word anything that make D&D distinctive has been washed out of it, it no longer has a personality or abides by any identifiable thread that makes it a specific fantasy that is recognizable, it's the ultimate in generic fantasy striving to be as generic as is humanly possible and still technically qualifying as fantasy game. It's intentionally designed to be the blandest game it could possibly be with absolutely not a single thing that distinguishes in any way shape or form.
That said, I do think there is one advantage to this to designing the game this way, a significant one.
One very obvious thing is that 5e 2024 D&D is also incredibly modular, to use a metaphor, out of the box it is the very boring color beige, but beige is actually a very good neutral color upon which to paint your own masterpiece. I think the only other variant of D&D that has this level of flexibility is 1st edition B/X and I think that is because the mechanics are so streamlined, unassuming and direct.
You can take this very generic system and mold it in a million different ways and in that, there is a lot of creativity that can be achieved and because the design space is so easy to work with, this really is not something that requires a lot of specialized knowledge. Sure it helps to be a creative person and have some practice in that way, but that tends to describe most people who play D&D. I mean, its a game that is a kind of magnet for that type of personality.
I found for example that creating my own setting by using the D&D that's there to piece together my own world and adapt the game to serve my setting with adapted rules, based on those that already exist, to be a pretty easy and very fun experience.
I would never in a million years just play D&D using the rules as written in the player's handbook in that generic fantasy space, but once you layer your own design over it, your own setting.... Yeah.. there is real magic in that.
In a sense, it's the same thing that I love about 1st edition B/X. In a way 5e 2024 is a Dungeons and Dragons creation toolkit more than a game and its just about taking all of these pieces and putting them together in creative ways.
For example the Backgrounds are very generic, but what happens when you write your own backgrounds, to fit your own fantasy world and get more specific is that you end up with a far more attractive and creative selection. Yes this takes work, but once the work is done the game goes from generic to specific in a flash. This is true about handling of skills, magic, classes, species. With very minor, tailored adaptions and changes which are easy to implement you end up with a hyper-focused RPG and these core rules were really well in that space because the game is so easy to adapt.
This is what I think expansion books could excel at - giving backgrounds, races, classes, etc. their distinctive charm. I could easily see a Ranger (as an example class) for Dark Sun vs. a Ranger for Planescape vs. a Ranger for Grey Hawk each be flesh out for their specific setting. The same goes for an Acolyte (as an example background) in each of these settings.
I would note that some of the things people are complaining about are deliberate design decisions; many of the things some of you consider "removing distinctive charm" other people consider "unnecessarily restrictive character creation".
I would note that some of the things people are complaining about are deliberate design decisions; many of the things some of you consider "removing distinctive charm" other people consider "unnecessarily restrictive character creation".
I must say that I kind of agree that a lot of the latest posts are working under the assumption that allowing anyone to roll on anything is (a) the way most new players play, but also (b) that it's a problem. I don't really know if (a) is true, but you can only say that (b) is true for yourself and those who prefer a more granular approach to skill checks (I would, in point of fact, put myself in this category as well). Even if (a) is true, it's a bit presumptive to think that people don't enjoy it, or even prefer it. And those that don't enjoy it or prefer it are free run the game (or find a game) however they see fit. I mean, just look at how many people think the 2024 background ASIs are "backwards". I'd bet the majority of them would also prefer that any character can "try" any skill check.
I would note that some of the things people are complaining about are deliberate design decisions; many of the things some of you consider "removing distinctive charm" other people consider "unnecessarily restrictive character creation".
I'm sure that's probably true, which begs the question: Do you cater to people who love D&D with its classic charm in place, or do you cater to people who don't love it and think it should be changed?
FWIW, technically, the DMG says that you can only make (for example) a Strength (Athletics) check if you have proficiency in Athletics. It says that, otherwise, the DM calls for a regular Strength check. "You might specifically ask for an Intelligence (Arcana) check, or you can ask for an Intelligence check and let the player negotiate with you to see if one of the character’s skill or tool proficiencies applies."
There's plenty of room for DM freedom, and many DMs might ignore this wording, but it's literally establishing the language that the "[Ability] ([Proficiency])" syntax requires [Proficiency].
Thing is, DMs run the game (and players play the game) as they imagine it in their head, possibly drawing from older editions and ancient lineages of homebrew and oral tradition. It's probably unfair to say that's the fault of the new books.
I mean this is kind of semantics, if you don't have proficiency in a skill then it just matches the stat anyway, hence why in reality most DM's just ask for the skill check.
That doesn't say that the player can't roll, it just says they only use the "skill" if they have proficiency, otherwise it's just based off the flat stat.
There are skills that everyone has on account of being animals, such as Perception, whether or not they took prof in it. There also also skills that not everyone should have, like arcana. Then there are skills which are in the middle, like history.
I would note that some of the things people are complaining about are deliberate design decisions; many of the things some of you consider "removing distinctive charm" other people consider "unnecessarily restrictive character creation".
I'm sure that's probably true, which begs the question: Do you cater to people who love D&D with its classic charm in place, or do you cater to people who don't love it and think it should be changed?
This is a pretty easy question to ask a business. It is well established that 5e is more popular than any version that has come before it. It appeals to a much larger group of consumers than it ever has. How would going back make good business sense?
I would note that some of the things people are complaining about are deliberate design decisions; many of the things some of you consider "removing distinctive charm" other people consider "unnecessarily restrictive character creation".
I'm sure that's probably true, which begs the question: Do you cater to people who love D&D with its classic charm in place, or do you cater to people who don't love it and think it should be changed?
This is a pretty easy question to ask a business. It is well established that 5e is more popular than any version that has come before it. It appeals to a much larger group of consumers than it ever has. How would going back make good business sense?
We are talking about things that changed from 2014 to 2024, so it's not even a generational jump. Its the same audience and I would argue the changes right now in terms of preference are not tested. This isn't a question of old school vs. new school... its new school vs. newer school.
I would argue a lot of the changes are not shaking out well at all. Weapon Mastery is generally pretty poorly received, Backgrounds have been complained about since the game drop. These changes to skill execution are also new to 2024 and really most of the "washing out" of D&D staples in this latest version really aren't part of what 5e core was in 2014.
These two editions might be compatible, but they are running on very different philosophies and I would not argue that the changes are being well received by modern gamers, mainly because modern gamers aren't really modern gamers. Every poll taken about this community shows objectively that the vast majority of players all come from pre-5e era games.
We'll see how it shakes out but really the only saving grace of 2024 5e is that really, most of the things that they have changed, are easy to house rule in/out. Like, if you don't like Weapon Masteries, don't use them, if you don't like backgrounds, customize them or use 2014 backgrounds.. same with skills. Because the game is compatible, its not really a problem per say, but its not exactly the same either.
I would note that some of the things people are complaining about are deliberate design decisions; many of the things some of you consider "removing distinctive charm" other people consider "unnecessarily restrictive character creation".
I'm sure that's probably true, which begs the question: Do you cater to people who love D&D with its classic charm in place, or do you cater to people who don't love it and think it should be changed?
This is a pretty easy question to ask a business. It is well established that 5e is more popular than any version that has come before it. It appeals to a much larger group of consumers than it ever has. How would going back make good business sense?
We are talking about things that changed from 2014 to 2024, so it's not even a generational jump. Its the same audience and I would argue the changes right now in terms of preference are not tested. This isn't a question of old school vs. new school... its new school vs. newer school.
I would argue a lot of the changes are not shaking out well at all. Weapon Mastery is generally pretty poorly received, Backgrounds have been complained about since the game drop. These changes to skill execution are also new to 2024 and really most of the "washing out" of D&D staples in this latest version really aren't part of what 5e core was in 2014.
These two editions might be compatible, but they are running on very different philosophies and I would not argue that the changes are being well received by modern gamers, mainly because modern gamers aren't really modern gamers. Every poll taken about this community shows objectively that the vast majority of players all come from pre-5e era games.
We'll see how it shakes out but really the only saving grace of 2024 5e is that really, most of the things that they have changed, are easy to house rule in/out. Like, if you don't like Weapon Masteries, don't use them, if you don't like backgrounds, customize them or use 2014 backgrounds.. same with skills. Because the game is compatible, its not really a problem per say, but its not exactly the same either.
My observation has been that Weapon Masteries have gotten a positive response. Please point to a poll or some other data that says otherwise.
We are talking about things that changed from 2014 to 2024, so it's not even a generational jump. Its the same audience and I would argue the changes right now in terms of preference are not tested. This isn't a question of old school vs. new school... its new school vs. newer school.
I would argue a lot of the changes are not shaking out well at all. Weapon Mastery is generally pretty poorly received, Backgrounds have been complained about since the game drop. These changes to skill execution are also new to 2024 and really most of the "washing out" of D&D staples in this latest version really aren't part of what 5e core was in 2014.
These two editions might be compatible, but they are running on very different philosophies and I would not argue that the changes are being well received by modern gamers, mainly because modern gamers aren't really modern gamers. Every poll taken about this community shows objectively that the vast majority of players all come from pre-5e era games.
We'll see how it shakes out but really the only saving grace of 2024 5e is that really, most of the things that they have changed, are easy to house rule in/out. Like, if you don't like Weapon Masteries, don't use them, if you don't like backgrounds, customize them or use 2014 backgrounds.. same with skills. Because the game is compatible, its not really a problem per say, but its not exactly the same either.
You can argue it all you like.
2024 selling faster than the 2014 version did is a fact, not a guess, assumption, or a feeling.
Weapon Masteries may not be popular with your table, but they are with mine. The only people that I find hating on them are the same people that were hating on the 2014 version of the game. Haters are going to hate.
I have found no difference in skills so I don't know what you are going on about there. It is the same skills and same mechanics as before.
I disliked backgrounds, but even then the 2024 DMG provided the solution. So the 2024 version of the game is better when you use the tools it provides.
As for the number of old vs new players, you will have to find a poll that proves that. The latest poll here showed that this site skews older, but that poll also linked to Reddit with a MUCH larger pool of participants and the number of people that started with 5e was more than all other previous editions combined.
It’s also worth pointing out that a poll tells you very little except the opinions of people who answer polls. That number will always be a very small segment of a larger community and depending where you ask you’ll get wildly different results. Outside of polls there’s a simple piece of maths that shows that the majority of users can’t be coming over from previous generations and that’s the fact 5e has massively outsold every other edition and that wouldn’t be true if it wasn’t attracting new players. That’s just logic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And? Most DMs start as players, not jumping headfirst into DMing.
They don't have to know that. What they have to know is what the book says - "Players shouldn’t just roll ability checks without context; they should tell you what their characters are trying to achieve, and make ability checks only if you ask them to." That's all.
And again, this is a problem of your own making. "I don't think an 18 Int warrior with no proficiency should be able to get a higher Arcana result than a less intelligent spellcaster with proficiency." So... call for your rolls accordingly. You're taking a scenario that you personally find incongruous or problematic, and then asking how everyone else would be expected to solve that problem, without stopping to consider whether other groups would even see it as a problem in the first place.
It's based on knowing how dice work. Whenever you call for a roll, you're inviting the chance that the person with lower modifiers can have a higher result or vice-versa. If you don't find those outcomes fun, the game already gave you the tools to avoid that (advantage/disadvantage, not rolling, adjudicating results differently etc.) Use them.
I understand what you're saying and here is the thing, I don't even really disagree with it, but I disagree on one point which is that any of that is intuitive or beginner-friendly.
The rules we are talking about and what you derived from those rules don't match up at all. Rules are instructions, they tell you what to do, how to do it, and when to do it and these rules don't do any of that. The implication is in what the rules omit, what they don't say is where you are deriving the instructions on what you can do or what can't be done.
I agree with you that the rules don't actually tell you how you can and can't use proficiencies, or what proficiencies do or don't mean or how they are and aren't applied, the instructions are "you are the DM, do whatever feels right".
From those rules how do you decide when a proficiency allows a roll and when the absence of a proficiency means you don't get one? How does that rule tell you that if you have proficiency and succeed on the skill check the results might or are different than succeeding on a check if you don't have the proficiency?
These "rulings" are allowed, through the omission of anything suggesting that it's against the rules, so a DM, through DM fiat, can simply rule and make those decisions and still be functioning within the rules (which notably is something I actually do-do, in my own games) but what I disagree with..again.. is that any of that is intuitive or beginner friendly.
The rules basically say "You the DM decide when someone gets a skill check and you can make that decision using any logic you like".. there are no instructions, advice or condition considerations like proficiency built into that definition. So the rules are hyper-permissive, but hardly instructional. The assumption that DM's will figure this out or come to some sort of consensus on how this will work I think is very presumptuous and this isn't because new DM's are stupid, its that DM's and players will not agree on how these omissions "should" be implemented.
The new DMG has much better overall guidance than the 2014 version, yet the number of people playing the game has only grown over the last 10 years. Maybe the players you are stressing over will be just fine.
Mother and Cat Herder. Playing TTRPGs since 1989 (She/Her)
Critical Role does not limit who can do what based on skill or proficiency, in fact more often then not the least skilled person at the table at a thing will roll for it because they are the one who asked to do it. With Matt setting a limit of 2 players attempting a thing generally (although in campaign 3 that rule has become a lot more flexible), He also used to use group skill checks a lot more then he does now, that is a very 3.5e and pathfinder thing that DnD mentioned in the DMG but as with all the best things didn;t put much emphasis on, it is again mentioned as an aside in the 2024 rules. With the new 2024 rules the focus is a lot more on anyone can do anything, and players then think getting the best skilled player to do that thing is meta gaming.
The new Rules and the new DMG do not help and they should, if you are buying a product and saying, "but really go online and see how other people play the game rather then read this" then again I will argue the rules are inherently flawed and therefore so is the system.
yes anyone can come into DnD and apply either there experience from other systems (def me), experience in life (interest in improv etc), or what they have seen on You Tube, but, that should not be a prerequisite to get the most out of the game.
This is why I dislike the new rulebook and the new DMG, if you compare it to other systems and the way they explain and describe the game DnD has no right to be as successful as it is, with 2024 WOTC had a real chance to be better, and yes there are very real mechanical improvements, but, the game as a whole that sits in the pages of the rulebook has been made worse (in my opinion) if you play it strictly rules as written because the emphasis is on the combat and not the other 2 Pillars that WOTC goes on about. You cant even say that they are given equal place in the rules, everything is shifted towards DnD being a combat engine, and that is fine, it is a valid game system to want to play, but WOTC should not try and pretend otherwise. If they want a more full rounded experiance then give more detail, more rules and more flavour that helps outside of combat, the old 2014 book at least gave brand new players.a bunch of tables and details with backgrounds, classes etc that would help them create a rounded character. Now if you go from the rulebook your starting character might be a sailor, who is on paper exactly the same as any other background except with a different set of mechanical skills.
Matt has absolutely limited skill checks to people with proficiency in that skill. He doesn't do it often, but it has happened
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
That is kind of the point though. When a rule says "do whatever you want", its really not a rule or even a recommendation, its basically a DM fiat. Personally I'm fine with that, but you will end up with inconsistency where "sometimes" you do something and "sometimes" you don't. That inconsistency can lead to issues at the table. Why does Matt for example sometimes limit a skill check based on proficiency and sometimes he does not? What is the basis of that? How does a new DM know why Matt sometimes does it and sometimes doesn't? How does a player?
Again, I can't stress enough how I actually don't mind this at all, but when your at my table and I rule one way one time and another way another time, you have to be willing to accept that the DM is god, they decide what is true and when its true, they reserve their right to change their mind and they are not required to offer any explanation on any decision...ever. That is the only way a system like this can ever be implemented and so far as I can tell that is objectively contrary to everything modern D&D stands for.
That is however EXACTLY how this rule works and what it assumes. The DM is god, they rule all and this is RAW.
Your right I think he has my mistake but can't think of examples off the top of my head, generally a lot of the time in later campaigns the players will ask if they can do something, or know something, and use there knowledge of there character history to know if they might have a sense (Liam will often ask if Orym has knowledge of the events of Vox Machina etc),
Again this is something outside of the suggestions or rules in the book, or the advice in the DMG, so you have a history skill with a description, no where does it state "players should only be able to learn or know information it is logical for there characters to know" This could lead, understandably, to a DM and Player assuming that every History role must have a chance of uncovering information and all Proficiency will do is add to the modifier.
Doing anything outside of this is the DM interpreting the rules (and this we know makes the game better).
Now I don't think the players handbook is the right place for this nuance, I have always seen it that the Handbook teaches the mechanics of the game, the DMG then helps teach the flavour and nuance by suggesting how the DM can apply the rules in certain situations, how they can flex and flavour things to help drive the narrative elements, and how they can give the players a sense of the limitations and the walls of the sandbox in the world.
Having now read the new DMG, it is improved, but still lacks that element, deciding instead to waste 40 pages on Greyhawk and 30 pages on the cosmic wheel. neither of which helps a DM run a better game. It again comes really close to really pushing the game forward. Taking inspiration finally from Powered by the Apocalypse and including rules for more complex success failure mechanics is a great step forward and one that I think should have been in the core rules, not included as a potential add on, but even this is applied badly with not enough space given to explain and explore the approach, meaning if you haven't played a PbtA game then you have very little chance of really knowing how to apply these pretty powerful rules adjustments to your games.
I think you misunderstood me, I didn’t say you *have* to go online, I know plenty of people who’ve learnt to DM using nothing but the books (I know a few who’ve never read beyond the free rules in the Starter Sets and they run great games) I’m saying people will go online to learn whether you think they should have to or not because that’s just how people learn in 2024. People don’t read, they rely on YouTube and TikTok to explain everything from D&D to home improvement and that’s a big part of why WotC is pushing online tools, YouTube videos promoting the new rules and live plays so hard.
And as someone said above the game is more popular than its ever been, with more players than it’s ever had, so I don’t think people are struggling as hard as you and OSR4Ever seem to think
FWIW, technically, the DMG says that you can only make (for example) a Strength (Athletics) check if you have proficiency in Athletics. It says that, otherwise, the DM calls for a regular Strength check. "You might specifically ask for an Intelligence (Arcana) check, or you can ask for an Intelligence check and let the player negotiate with you to see if one of the character’s skill or tool proficiencies applies."
There's plenty of room for DM freedom, and many DMs might ignore this wording, but it's literally establishing the language that the "[Ability] ([Proficiency])" syntax requires [Proficiency].
Thing is, DMs run the game (and players play the game) as they imagine it in their head, possibly drawing from older editions and ancient lineages of homebrew and oral tradition. It's probably unfair to say that's the fault of the new books.
This is what I think expansion books could excel at - giving backgrounds, races, classes, etc. their distinctive charm. I could easily see a Ranger (as an example class) for Dark Sun vs. a Ranger for Planescape vs. a Ranger for Grey Hawk each be flesh out for their specific setting. The same goes for an Acolyte (as an example background) in each of these settings.
I would note that some of the things people are complaining about are deliberate design decisions; many of the things some of you consider "removing distinctive charm" other people consider "unnecessarily restrictive character creation".
I must say that I kind of agree that a lot of the latest posts are working under the assumption that allowing anyone to roll on anything is (a) the way most new players play, but also (b) that it's a problem. I don't really know if (a) is true, but you can only say that (b) is true for yourself and those who prefer a more granular approach to skill checks (I would, in point of fact, put myself in this category as well). Even if (a) is true, it's a bit presumptive to think that people don't enjoy it, or even prefer it. And those that don't enjoy it or prefer it are free run the game (or find a game) however they see fit. I mean, just look at how many people think the 2024 background ASIs are "backwards". I'd bet the majority of them would also prefer that any character can "try" any skill check.
I'm sure that's probably true, which begs the question: Do you cater to people who love D&D with its classic charm in place, or do you cater to people who don't love it and think it should be changed?
I mean this is kind of semantics, if you don't have proficiency in a skill then it just matches the stat anyway, hence why in reality most DM's just ask for the skill check.
That doesn't say that the player can't roll, it just says they only use the "skill" if they have proficiency, otherwise it's just based off the flat stat.
There are skills that everyone has on account of being animals, such as Perception, whether or not they took prof in it. There also also skills that not everyone should have, like arcana. Then there are skills which are in the middle, like history.
This is a pretty easy question to ask a business. It is well established that 5e is more popular than any version that has come before it. It appeals to a much larger group of consumers than it ever has. How would going back make good business sense?
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
We are talking about things that changed from 2014 to 2024, so it's not even a generational jump. Its the same audience and I would argue the changes right now in terms of preference are not tested. This isn't a question of old school vs. new school... its new school vs. newer school.
I would argue a lot of the changes are not shaking out well at all. Weapon Mastery is generally pretty poorly received, Backgrounds have been complained about since the game drop. These changes to skill execution are also new to 2024 and really most of the "washing out" of D&D staples in this latest version really aren't part of what 5e core was in 2014.
These two editions might be compatible, but they are running on very different philosophies and I would not argue that the changes are being well received by modern gamers, mainly because modern gamers aren't really modern gamers. Every poll taken about this community shows objectively that the vast majority of players all come from pre-5e era games.
We'll see how it shakes out but really the only saving grace of 2024 5e is that really, most of the things that they have changed, are easy to house rule in/out. Like, if you don't like Weapon Masteries, don't use them, if you don't like backgrounds, customize them or use 2014 backgrounds.. same with skills. Because the game is compatible, its not really a problem per say, but its not exactly the same either.
My observation has been that Weapon Masteries have gotten a positive response. Please point to a poll or some other data that says otherwise.
You can argue it all you like.
2024 selling faster than the 2014 version did is a fact, not a guess, assumption, or a feeling.
Weapon Masteries may not be popular with your table, but they are with mine. The only people that I find hating on them are the same people that were hating on the 2014 version of the game. Haters are going to hate.
I have found no difference in skills so I don't know what you are going on about there. It is the same skills and same mechanics as before.
I disliked backgrounds, but even then the 2024 DMG provided the solution. So the 2024 version of the game is better when you use the tools it provides.
As for the number of old vs new players, you will have to find a poll that proves that. The latest poll here showed that this site skews older, but that poll also linked to Reddit with a MUCH larger pool of participants and the number of people that started with 5e was more than all other previous editions combined.
Edit: Link to Reddit Poll
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
It’s also worth pointing out that a poll tells you very little except the opinions of people who answer polls. That number will always be a very small segment of a larger community and depending where you ask you’ll get wildly different results. Outside of polls there’s a simple piece of maths that shows that the majority of users can’t be coming over from previous generations and that’s the fact 5e has massively outsold every other edition and that wouldn’t be true if it wasn’t attracting new players. That’s just logic.