I am not sure I would describe it as anti-bounded accuracy but yes I do think if one character is super good at climbing they very much should be able to do a significant amount of climbing things that others simply have no chance at. That is very much a play style choice but it also IMO reflects reality, and the epic fantasy feel. We certainly see it extensively used within the combat rules where there are a ton of abilities and feats etc. that give you the chance to do something that others cannot even attempt. So it absolutely is also in keeping with how the D&D rules work in combat to have things outside of combat then end up mechanically being impossible or virtually impossible for some characters to do.
That does create *some* pigeon holing where only someone who has invested a bit in athletic ability can climb the outside of the tower, and other characters have to find another way. But I think that limitation aids in the realism and fun of the game rather than distracts from it. Of course again that is MY play style. But IMO it also tracks with the combat design.
Well a transition to Pathfinder 2e is not that big of a stretch for players familiar with 5e, in fact, most of the mechanics are the same with subtle and often more efficient handling of the rules. The problem with PF2e is that there are so many rules (quite literally a rule for everything) that when you actually do go into "free form" role-playing mode, the rules get under your feet quite often and its kind of a frustrating experience.
My group tried it, it worked for a time, but it was rather exhausting to constantly have rules to think about everytime you want to do anything. Sometimes you just want to say "I cook a meal" and not deal with the mechanical handling of it.
I don't know, I thought it was ok but I prefer the light approach of 5e or even lighter systems like Shadowdark or Daggerheart where the rules just kind of get out of your way. That is a playstyle preference thing, but personally I find too many rules just get in the way of the experience too much. Even 5e rules are a bit heavy in my opinion.
Well a transition to Pathfinder 2e is not that big of a stretch for players familiar with 5e, in fact, most of the mechanics are the same with subtle and often more efficient handling of the rules. The problem with PF2e is that there are so many rules (quite literally a rule for everything) that when you actually do go into "free form" role-playing mode, the rules get under your feet quite often and its kind of a frustrating experience.
My group tried it, it worked for a time, but it was rather exhausting to constantly have rules to think about everytime you want to do anything. Sometimes you just want to say "I cook a meal" and not deal with the mechanical handling of it.
I don't, I thought it was ok but I prefer the light approach of 5e or even lighter systems like Shadowdark or Daggerheart where the rules just kind of get out of your way. That is a playstyle preference thing, but personally I find too many rules just get in the way of the experience too much. Even 5e rules are a bit heavy in my opinion.
I do appreciate that Pathfinder may indeed have too many rules for different things. I feel like everyone has their own happy medium. I like a certain amount of general system support like being able to have different levels of skill in different skills, and having a wider selection of carefully thought out skills to work off as a template for custom ones, but I also don't like getting too mechanics heavy, a general guideline for all crafting with common general DC descriptions and common modifiers possibly even with ranges for obstacles you might encounter goes a long way. I can very much get by with ''crafting a complex or superior item is DC x and not having the right tools is -x to -y' without spelling out specifically what a souffle is or what tools you need for it etc.
My complaint is more about the proficiencies being very limited in number, being binary in nature rather, and not a significant enough amount of the end result of a given roll. THose are more fundamental system design choices that are harder to work around. You end up ignoring the proficiency and just declaring someone a decent cook, or saying you must be proficient to attempt x, etc. to try to work around what IMO is just poor quality design of the fundamentals which is masked in combat by the extensive variety of special rules that come into play. It is a fundamental decision to go with far more special abilities/feats/proficiencies/etc. as opposed to allowing anyone to try something but making it difficult enough that you need a certain level of skill for it to be realistically achievable. It actually is fundamentally a bit more restrictive design wise. Like only if you have proficiency in x weapon can you attempt to do y with it. vs. it is difficult to do y so only people with higher skill regularly attempt to pull it off. Without equal extensive special rules (which again I dislike) for non-combat stuff it ends up being not supported and thus not emphasized to players IMO. There are a ton of different abilities and feats you can get to be better at combat but far fewer to be good at social encounters or knowledges. Some do exist, and some cross over, but it certainly seems much more limited and doesn't get much attention in the official material. That does work for a dungion crawler where you are primarily in combat with some flavor and such in between but it seems very de-emphisized. You see that same ephesus in paring down how much down time activities are talked about in the DMG and placing them in supplements as well. It give the 'these are extra optional things not really the core game' vibes. Meanwhile there seems to be increased popular interest in games that have a lot more than just combat in them as far as what gets views on streaming.
I would probably honestly pick a different system than D&D if it were not for the popularity and aftermarket support for D&D. My library carries D&D books, there is a ton of content for every D&D setting and premade adventure on DM Guild, there are many people who know the system and are ready to play, etc.
Well a transition to Pathfinder 2e is not that big of a stretch for players familiar with 5e, in fact, most of the mechanics are the same with subtle and often more efficient handling of the rules. The problem with PF2e is that there are so many rules (quite literally a rule for everything) that when you actually do go into "free form" role-playing mode, the rules get under your feet quite often and its kind of a frustrating experience.
My group tried it, it worked for a time, but it was rather exhausting to constantly have rules to think about everytime you want to do anything. Sometimes you just want to say "I cook a meal" and not deal with the mechanical handling of it.
I don't, I thought it was ok but I prefer the light approach of 5e or even lighter systems like Shadowdark or Daggerheart where the rules just kind of get out of your way. That is a playstyle preference thing, but personally I find too many rules just get in the way of the experience too much. Even 5e rules are a bit heavy in my opinion.
I do appreciate that Pathfinder may indeed have too many rules for different things. I feel like everyone has their own happy medium. I like a certain amount of general system support like being able to have different levels of skill in different skills, and having a wider selection of carefully thought out skills to work off as a template for custom ones, but I also don't like getting too mechanics heavy, a general guideline for all crafting with common general DC descriptions and common modifiers possibly even with ranges for obstacles you might encounter goes a long way. I can very much get by with ''crafting a complex or superior item is DC x and not having the right tools is -x to -y' without spelling out specifically what a souffle is or what tools you need for it etc.
My complaint is more about the proficiencies being very limited in number, being binary in nature rather, and not a significant enough amount of the end result of a given roll. THose are more fundamental system design choices that are harder to work around. You end up ignoring the proficiency and just declaring someone a decent cook, or saying you must be proficient to attempt x, etc. to try to work around what IMO is just poor quality design of the fundamentals which is masked in combat by the extensive variety of special rules that come into play. It is a fundamental decision to go with far more special abilities/feats/proficiencies/etc. as opposed to allowing anyone to try something but making it difficult enough that you need a certain level of skill for it to be realistically achievable. It actually is fundamentally a bit more restrictive design wise. Like only if you have proficiency in x weapon can you attempt to do y with it. vs. it is difficult to do y so only people with higher skill regularly attempt to pull it off. Without equal extensive special rules (which again I dislike) for non-combat stuff it ends up being not supported and thus not emphasized to players IMO. There are a ton of different abilities and feats you can get to be better at combat but far fewer to be good at social encounters or knowledges. Some do exist, and some cross over, but it certainly seems much more limited and doesn't get much attention in the official material. That does work for a dungion crawler where you are primarily in combat with some flavor and such in between but it seems very de-emphisized. You see that same ephesus in paring down how much down time activities are talked about in the DMG and placing them in supplements as well. It give the 'these are extra optional things not really the core game' vibes. Meanwhile there seems to be increased popular interest in games that have a lot more than just combat in them as far as what gets views on streaming.
I would probably honestly pick a different system than D&D if it were not for the popularity and aftermarket support for D&D. My library carries D&D books, there is a ton of content for every D&D setting and premade adventure on DM Guild, there are many people who know the system and are ready to play, etc.
The best thing I ever did as a GM and really the best thing for my local group was that I stopped trying to run games that people want me to run and started running games I want to run, the way I want to run them. As a forever GM for my group, It was very unpopular initially; some people even outright left in anger because they thought it was an unfair and uncompromising attitude but I sort of felt that, if I'm going to invest in running a game, its going to be the one I want to run. I never compromise on that. I never stopped anyone from running games, but most people are just unwilling to put in the work and even the few that attempted to run their own games couldn't really do it successfully in the end.
It was a kind of harsh period in my group, in fact, people still come to me now and again and complain but I don't really care. I mean, I run games that I think are cool, I tell stories that I think are cool and its pretty much a take it or leave it thing. I have such a large player pool that I never have trouble filling seats and frankly the games are just much much better now because I'm so into what I'm doing that the result is better than me running something I don't like running.
So my advice is, pick the game that works for you, and run that and anyone who doesn't want to play it...tough luck, let them either GM or find another GM to run the game they like. But don't torture yourself running games you don't like just because you can find players for it, that is eventually going to burn you out, its not a good long term strategy.
When it comes to skill checks, you can always just rule that characters who have, say +8 or higher on a skill (easily achievable by level 8 at the most) don't have to make a roll vs a specific scenario.
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 one thing that doesn't seem to have come up is the use of advantage and disadvantage. That's the system built in to the rules to reflect that some people are just better than others, even others who might have proficiency or expertise. If a player has written into their background that they're one of the world's greatest at a certain thing then let them roll with advantage, greatly increasing the chances of success. So long as every player gets to have something this applies to it won't become a case of favouritism but just using the tools provided
The one thing that doesn't seem to have come up is the use of advantage and disadvantage. That's the system built in to the rules to reflect that some people are just better than others, even others who might have proficiency or expertise. If a player has written into their background that they're one of the world's greatest at a certain thing then let them roll with advantage, greatly increasing the chances of success. So long as every player gets to have something this applies to it won't become a case of favouritism but just using the tools provided
I think it's kind of a bad precedent to start using advantage and disadvantage as a way to incorporate background writing as a mechanical advantage, not so much because I think the concept is a bad idea (its actualy how similiar systems work in other RPG's like Daggerheart for example) , but because that is not really the intent of the advantage/disadvantage system in 5e specifically. Its purpose is to replace structures that were once itemized into various bonuses/penalties. For example , fighting in the rain might yield a -2 penalty on attacks in past versions of D&D, but in modern D&D you just get a disadvantage. When things were itemized it resulted in rules weight, and the adv/dis system just makes it much easier to implement. It's a very intentional abstraction.
To use this structure as a way to define backstory and background elements of a character, is to invite the debate of players calling on the system to be utilized. In a word, using it as you describe turns this into a GM fiat system where the DM must now be ultra careful that they are being fair about which parts of a background of a character's background offer an advantage/disadvantage. This works for "conditions" quite ok, because the DM is expected to GM fiat conditions (aka you're tired from X, or the rope bridge is very unstable and so on). However if you start using it as a perk or flaw of a written character background, you're turning something that is up for interpretation of someone's idea of a character.
I can see players for example saying stuff like "I should get an advantage on this attack, I trained for years with the Harper swordmasters when I was young". Why would something like that not work but something like "I'm a great chef, I should get an advantage on cooking this spider" does?
I personally think that 5e is really not equipped as a design to facilitate the sort of detail that the OP is asking for. 5e is a highly abstracted adventure RPG, and realism isn't really something that it tries to replicate with its rules. The idea of "supporting role-playing" with mechanical detail is not really what 5e does in most areas. There are generalizations like "You're athletic" because you have proficiency in Athletics, but this is very abstract because the reality is that this gives you a +2 bonus for example on a d20 roll. The difference between someone who has proficiency and doesn't is pretty negligible mathmatically. There really is no such thing as expertise in the game, which represents skill mechanics. Certainly not a layered approach where you can distinguish between "a master" and an "apprentice" in a skill.
There are games like PF2e that do this, but D&D is just not that game. You can as you describe, "wing it" with GM Fiat but again, I don't think that is what the OP is talking about here.
Why don't you try the "Trusting human judgement" as a means to impress with not standard skills?
Want to impress a noble with a dish? Describe the dish, and see if it sways your DM to consider it a pass or not. " I make a tarte tatin using apples from the noble's lands, i take care to find fine butter to caramelize the apples in, I heard he like a little spicy kick so i add some grated ginger as well nutmeg and cinnamon. Some rolled oats in the crust give it extra texture, and to really wow him/her i add some lemon zest to the clotted creme as i prepared it so it has some extra zing."
If you character has a backstory as a chef or you consistantly roll plated that you were, then your DM might just go, "That sounds amazing, Yeah that knocks his socks off." At worst you might have to explain what some of those terms mean. but you as a player put in the work to make it happen, even if the system doesn't support it, you can still do it through the power of, talking to your DM. (which is part of the system)
One of the reasons there aren't mechanics for this sort of thing, is that we as players and DMs manage to do them all the time without rules. The moment you say there are rules for something, that is when people feel closed out of them. Before the Thief class was introduced, and they got lockpicking rules, everyone could try to pick locks or disarm traps, then no one could but the thief, and it took decades for it to shift back to 'anyone can try it, but one class has features for it' attitude. I want the fighter to be able to say "My mom used to make this pie, i am going to try and figure it out." and roleplay piecing it together instead of "You need the Savory pie feat" or whatever.
Freeform is best form, and any rules for it should be agreed upon by the table, because then it is likely meant to impact the story, and have well thought out application. If my 300 pound tiefling impresses Bruenar Battlehammer with his Dwarven Beerbread, that is perfect opening for us to get the maps to the deep tunnels. ( this was something that actually happened at a table i played at. ) My character's mother was a Dwarf and DM even added that one of the Royal tunnel cartographers was my cousin and would guide us.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
I'm reasonably confident that the PBIF from the 2014 rules were intended to emulate other RPGs that let you make arbitrary statements about your background, but it really never got developed (a standard implementation would basically say that you get inspiration when your personality traits cause you problems or otherwise make it more difficult to succeed, and can spend inspiration when you try to do something that aligns with those traits).
Why don't you try the "Trusting human judgement" as a means to impress with not standard skills?
Want to impress a noble with a dish? Describe the dish, and see if it sways your DM to consider it a pass or not. " I make a tarte tatin using apples from the noble's lands, i take care to find fine butter to caramelize the apples in, I heard he like a little spicy kick so i add some grated ginger as well nutmeg and cinnamon. Some rolled oats in the crust give it extra texture, and to really wow him/her i add some lemon zest to the clotted creme as i prepared it so it has some extra zing."
If you character has a backstory as a chef or you consistantly roll plated that you were, then your DM might just go, "That sounds amazing, Yeah that knocks his socks off." At worst you might have to explain what some of those terms mean. but you as a player put in the work to make it happen, even if the system doesn't support it, you can still do it through the power of, talking to your DM. (which is part of the system)
One of the reasons there aren't mechanics for this sort of thing, is that we as players and DMs manage to do them all the time without rules. The moment you say there are rules for something, that is when people feel closed out of them. Before the Thief class was introduced, and they got lockpicking rules, everyone could try to pick locks or disarm traps, then no one could but the thief, and it took decades for it to shift back to 'anyone can try it, but one class has features for it' attitude. I want the fighter to be able to say "My mom used to make this pie, i am going to try and figure it out." and roleplay piecing it together instead of "You need the Savory pie feat" or whatever.
Freeform is best form, and any rules for it should be agreed upon by the table, because then it is likely meant to impact the story, and have well thought out application. If my 300 pound tiefling impresses Bruenar Battlehammer with his Dwarven Beerbread, that is perfect opening for us to get the maps to the deep tunnels. ( this was something that actually happened at a table i played at. ) My character's mother was a Dwarf and DM even added that one of the Royal tunnel cartographers was my cousin and would guide us.
What you're describing is effectively the playstyle 5e has in mind for things not covered by the rules and abstractions in the game, but it's a bit like telling a guy who wants the color Yellow ... how about you try blue, it's really great?
In the end, the OP is describing the desire for a playstyle with a granularity of rules and mechanics that 5e simply does not have and is not capable of handling. He is playing the wrong game for what he wants to achieve; it's really that simple. There are games that work as he described out there, but I do understand the dilemma he is having.
If you have a 5e D&D gaming group, people who want to play 5e D&D, and 5e is not a system that does what you want, you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, as all of your options kind of suck or are basically impossible. It's not really a resolvable issue.
The only question I would ask, which might be the caveat here is this. Is this rules granularity that you want in the game, what your players also want? Meaning is this a complaint the group shares with you or is it just a complaint that you have about the game? I'm making the assumption that its only the GM in this case that is having the issue with the system itself, which is the dilema.
Generally speaking, as a GM of many different kinds of games myself, my goal with any game is to translate the setting, genre and the theme of the game via the rules. In essence, any RPG is about something and how its about that is what the rules represent.
The only real charm of 5e as a game system is that it's not really "about" anything specific. It's a sort of generic power fantasy RPG that is kind of its own genre and style of play. It's not even realy D&D in the traditional sense as its not in the same genre or playstyle of any previous version of the game. In fact, its not even capable of covering genres of play those older editions cover. Its kind of its own thing and that thing it does, is what makes it the most popular RPG in the world.
Sometimes, when dealing with a group that "likes something", it doesn't necessarily mean they are incapable of liking anything else. In fact, I find universally that most gaming groups once they get away from the idea that there is only one game in the universe and actually try other games, they usually discover that playing many different types of games with lots of different variation is far more fun than just always playing the same game. But the sales pitch really shouldn't be "the rules", because the rules usually work in support of a particular genre, style or setting... so you sell those things not the rules.
Like I don't think its much of a sales pitch to say "hey we are going to play a game with more rules granularity.. because thats... fun?" I mean... it doesn't sound fun.
I think even if you have a group of 5e players, if as a GM you want to try something different, it comes down to the pitch. How are you selling the alternative to them. I don't think its hard to get people to try different games, not as hard as some people try to make it sound.
Public Mod Note(Elgate): Gentle reminder for folk to remember that framing it as 'You', can feel like targetting a specific user (especially in response to a quote), instead of sounding like a more general 'you all/ people'
As for Wizards of the Coast using A.I. It is a 100% guarantee that they will use A.I. to assist in writing books. This is not up for debate, every single company, every single writer and every single person on the planet WILL use A.I. for everything they do. Saying "we won't use A.I." is like saying that you refuse to use the internet because its cheating... Its a tool, THEY WILL use it, as will everyone else. This resistance to A.I. is a silly and mostly stupid endeavour forcing companies into a wierd political situation in which they are essentially asked not to use a tool that is literally mandatory at this point. Anyone not using A.I. at this point will fail to survive in any business. People need to start making their peace with it. There is no future for any company that refuses to A.I.
Having read close to 800 pages across two books on the subject of 'AI,' what it is, what it isn't, and many more across multiple articles, I can say with confidence that anyone saying there is no future for any company that refuses to use it does not know what he or she is talking about.
As a tool 'AI' is not at all 'mandatory.' I don't use it for work or play. And have no intention of ever using it.
And we are already seeing people forced to use it say it impedes their performance. Because they then have to fix the problems it causes. Even in the tech industry many are saying this.
It isn't as if there aren't numbers available about how it isn't at all accelerating productivity. And something like 95 percent of 'AI' startups fail. This is so obviously a bubble we are looking at. A bubble inflated by tech media and big business and big government alike.
In my workplace it has only been the cause of a decline in the quality of any text-based materials. No one wants it but those who are addicted to using it and who are then too blind to see its shortcomings.
[Redacted]
This isn't even to mention what neuro studies are now showing about its use. Erosion of people's ability to think critically. [Redacted] Science can even tell them it is bad for their brains but they don't care. That is terrifying.
It is common sense least of all scientifically backed up that if someone outsources important cognitive processes to machines that someone's brain will all but atrophy.
We have already seen at least one prominent brain expert say we are going to see things like dementia skyrocket in future decades thanks to people's having spent decades refusing to expend the mental effort to do things they could just do themselves. But no. They have grown dependent on 'AI.'
[Redacted]
Is Wizards of the Coast using it? I couldn't say.
But anyone who engages with smaller indie publishers of games, their writers, their artists, knows these people are overwhelmingly opposed to the tech because they see it as nothing short of a moral disgrace.
Public Mod Note
(Elgate):
Gentle reminder for folk to remember that framing it as 'You', can feel like targetting a specific user (especially in response to a quote), instead of sounding like a more general 'you all/ people'
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Here is the thing, everything you just said is a 100% accurate and it will not change the fact that A.I. already IS the single most important technology no one can ignore in the 21st century. The fact that it comes with pitfalls and horrific consequences doesn't matter.
Automobile has caused incalculable damage to the planet. Studies have shown that 50% of all usage of the internet use is for looking at ****. Nuclear energy has resulted in the creation of the most destructive weapons in human history and may just be what ends civilization one day...
You can pick any technology and find a million reasons why we shouldn't invent it or use the results, yet it is an unstoppable force and it cannot be ignored.
For all its drawbacks and potential hazards.. just like every other major advance of human civilization, A.I. is here to stay and anyone not leveraging its benefits, despite any drawbacks... is unequivocally irrelevant. For any modern day tech job, "do you know how to use A.I.?" is the first and only interview question that matters today.
Looking through this thread, honestly there is some really tasty (honestly, I'm hungry now) constructive conversations going on on how to design around supporting roleplay. Love to see it.
There was also some healthy discussion on AI and concerns of it being used in D&D. We understand those concerns may never go away, and they're important conversations to have. I'll point towards WotC current stance on AI, but I'm afraid I'll also have to ask for that topic to be put on hold in this thread, as it is one that can get quite heated as folk naturally have strong opinions on it, and I'd hate for it to derail what is otherwise a productive thread. Remember to be gentle with each other folk, and challenge the ideas, not each other.
As for the conversation on roleplay support please do continue, some fascinating topics coming up.
The only real charm of 5e as a game system is that it's not really "about" anything specific. It's a sort of generic power fantasy RPG that is kind of its own genre and style of play. It's not even realy D&D in the traditional sense as its not in the same genre or playstyle of any previous version of the game. In fact, its not even capable of covering genres of play those older editions cover. Its kind of its own thing and that thing it does, is what makes it the most popular RPG in the world.
I agree with a lot of that but there are a LOT of other factors that have made D&D so popular. The historical brand strength, extensive supporting ecosystem, and large existing player base, and marketing are definitely very real factors. Even if it isn't great at what people want to do with it, there are very good reasons to stick with D&D and house rule around various issues.
Why don't you try the "Trusting human judgement" as a means to impress with not standard skills?
Want to impress a noble with a dish? Describe the dish, and see if it sways your DM to consider it a pass or not. " I make a tarte tatin using apples from the noble's lands, i take care to find fine butter to caramelize the apples in, I heard he like a little spicy kick so i add some grated ginger as well nutmeg and cinnamon. Some rolled oats in the crust give it extra texture, and to really wow him/her i add some lemon zest to the clotted creme as i prepared it so it has some extra zing."
If you character has a backstory as a chef or you consistantly roll plated that you were, then your DM might just go, "That sounds amazing, Yeah that knocks his socks off." At worst you might have to explain what some of those terms mean. but you as a player put in the work to make it happen, even if the system doesn't support it, you can still do it through the power of, talking to your DM. (which is part of the system)
One of the reasons there aren't mechanics for this sort of thing, is that we as players and DMs manage to do them all the time without rules. The moment you say there are rules for something, that is when people feel closed out of them. Before the Thief class was introduced, and they got lockpicking rules, everyone could try to pick locks or disarm traps, then no one could but the thief, and it took decades for it to shift back to 'anyone can try it, but one class has features for it' attitude. I want the fighter to be able to say "My mom used to make this pie, i am going to try and figure it out." and roleplay piecing it together instead of "You need the Savory pie feat" or whatever.
Freeform is best form, and any rules for it should be agreed upon by the table, because then it is likely meant to impact the story, and have well thought out application. If my 300 pound tiefling impresses Bruenar Battlehammer with his Dwarven Beerbread, that is perfect opening for us to get the maps to the deep tunnels. ( this was something that actually happened at a table i played at. ) My character's mother was a Dwarf and DM even added that one of the Royal tunnel cartographers was my cousin and would guide us.
What you just described IS a lack of support for out of combat things. If there is nothing on your character sheet, nothing determined by the rules, nothing helping arbitrate wither you are successful at cooking beyond your speech to the DM that means you are doing something the system doesn't actually support. I totally understand and respect the need for flexibility in any role playing system as well as the need for simplification. But you can have those things to a considerable extent and still have some rules indicating what things a given character can accomplish. D&D has that for combat. Their are all kinds of mechanics indicating what you can or can't attempt, how much you can do in a round, and how successful you are. But step out of combat and try to do something and there just is very little in way of rules arbitration, and the arbitration there is has key flaws IMO where it doesn't create very meaningful mechanical differences between characters who are supposed to be great at something and those who are not.
A good GM and Players can role play entire campaigns everything including combat with no books of any kind. The D&D books explicitly exist to add structure to collective story telling and arbitrate what a character can and can't do. And it is fairly predictable that what the system supports the most will end up being a primary focus of players when acting in the game world. Have them make the vast majority of decisions when designing a character be based on what effects each ability has with respect to combat specifically and they will be very likely to focus on combat during play. Systems that focus the overwhelming majority of their character creation on social traits or allies and enemies with very little info about combat tend to lead to very different play styles in addition to being favored by people who already have those different play styles.
The current edition of D&D IMO clearly focuses play on very detached gamified combat. Wounds don't matter much except as an expendable resource, having or not having non-combat skills make very little mechanical difference, they are really not encouraging social manipulation and character development as a play style.
If there is nothing on your character sheet, nothing determined by the rules, nothing helping arbitrate wither you are successful at cooking . . .
As has already been pointed out, both of these are material falsehoods. Proficiency in cooks tools provides you a mechanical system, with a mechanical advantage, to being good at cooking, if you build that into your character. The rules also provide a very clear table for how to arbitrate these kinds of decisions - there is an entire table on how to set difficulty checks which can be applied to every single skill check, including a cooking one. Both these points were made before on this thread; both of them you are repeatedly choosing to disregard.
This same set of rules - tool proficiencies and the difficulty table - can apply to most every situation one can come up with.
Now, maybe you want more rules than that. Which is fine - in that case, you can play a different system or use supplemental products (including some Wizards offers here) for alternative rules. But saying there exists “nothing” under RAW is factually incorrect.
The current edition of D&D IMO clearly focuses play on very detached gamified combat. Wounds don't matter much except as an expendable resource, having or not having non-combat skills make very little mechanical difference, they are really not encouraging social manipulation and character development as a play style.
if there is no encouragement for social manipulation and Character development, then why are Deception, insight, persuasion, intimidation and Investigation skills? Those are all social skills. I have played entire campaigns in 5E2014 that had no actual combat unless you could a mudfight with local children as a reward for them telling us what we needed to know. This was a game where we needed non combat social skills to even play.
The Rules are replete with non-combat skills, and you keep saying they don't exist. I will give an example from that campaign. Deception: "Your lordship, the princess has not been found, we are still looking." Insight to check his reaction to that statement. He seems relieved. Intimidation " Your Lordship, the unclenching of your jaw tells me you are glad to hear your Daughter is still missing, i must inform you, that she is very much found, and safe, now if you do not wish for the queen to hear of your relief, and the letter that the kidnappers had on them, then perhaps you should start explaining yourself." Insight check: " The fact that your guards have made no move against me tells me you have no friends in this room."
My bad for focusing so much on cooking, but for you to say that there are no out of combat skills or social aspects to the game is mind boggling. Infact all the in combat skills can be used out of combat, but only certain subclasses like the inquisitive rouge mention applying social skills to combat. there are no Social only CLASSES, but there enough social skills, that you would have to really try hard to build a character who dind't have any of them.
My combat focused sorcerer was able to engage in social roleplay just fine with the things available during character creation, and the only spell i ever had to use in the 7 weeks this went on was MESSAGE! Now tell me again how there are no skills for that type of play. To hammer this point home, i was the only character in this campaign that was combat optimized, because I was added last minute, and brought a character from another table. Do you know how weird it felt to play Kardack the face melter next to a Tavern owner who never said what class he was, his two daughters who were Bards, and the Local Priest, a life Domain Cleric who's cane counted as a club if you squinted hard enough?
Want to have a conversation about social play favoring Charisma casters, that is another conversation entirely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player. The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call To rise up in triumph should we all unite The spark for change is yours to ignite." Kalandra - The State of the World
This thread reminds me of the dichotomies of "tell me how to do x, WotC" vs "don't tell me what to do, WotC" & "roleplay" vs "rollplay" in this fandom.
For every person demanding crafting & cooking to be given serious attention or skill trees, there are just as many people who will refuse any system given because it wasn't their headcanon as to what they wanted and/or imagined. Some of these overlap, even.
Given crafting wasn't crunchy enough despite high(sic) demand, does OP honestly trust WotC to make a satisfactory cooking system, let alone a stat distribution revamp to support all possible skills for a skill tree?
Adding more skills simply won't scratch that roleplay itch the way OP is expecting or imagining in Dungeons & Dragons, nor will it fix any of the fandom dichotomies that happen whenever add-ons happen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
The reality of roleplaying support in RPGs is that game systems known for being more RP focused do not generally have particularly robust mechanical support for roleplaying; instead, the rules are set up with the intention of getting people to roleplay. I've seen this handled in D&D via advantage (you gave a great description of what you're going to do, have advantage) or inspiration (that was cool, gain inspiration). To the degree this extends to things like background skills, it's likely just "that's in character for you, so get a bonus" or "that's out of character, take a penalty".
I suspect the PBIF system in 2014 was intended to function in a similar way, but not properly implemented. What I would have expected is something like:
Gaining Inspiration: when one of your personal characteristics causes you to fail in a situation you would otherwise succeed, or causes you to take actions you would otherwise avoid, and this causes you significant inconvenience (DM's discretion, but characters with reasonable flaws should expect to gain a point or two a session), gain inspiration.
Spending Inspiration: when you fail at an action where it would be reasonable for one of your personal characteristics to help, explain how that personal characteristic is of assistance, and if the DM agrees, you may spend inspiration to reroll.
Well a transition to Pathfinder 2e is not that big of a stretch for players familiar with 5e, in fact, most of the mechanics are the same with subtle and often more efficient handling of the rules. The problem with PF2e is that there are so many rules (quite literally a rule for everything) that when you actually do go into "free form" role-playing mode, the rules get under your feet quite often and its kind of a frustrating experience.
My group tried it, it worked for a time, but it was rather exhausting to constantly have rules to think about everytime you want to do anything. Sometimes you just want to say "I cook a meal" and not deal with the mechanical handling of it.
I don't know, I thought it was ok but I prefer the light approach of 5e or even lighter systems like Shadowdark or Daggerheart where the rules just kind of get out of your way. That is a playstyle preference thing, but personally I find too many rules just get in the way of the experience too much. Even 5e rules are a bit heavy in my opinion.
I do appreciate that Pathfinder may indeed have too many rules for different things. I feel like everyone has their own happy medium. I like a certain amount of general system support like being able to have different levels of skill in different skills, and having a wider selection of carefully thought out skills to work off as a template for custom ones, but I also don't like getting too mechanics heavy, a general guideline for all crafting with common general DC descriptions and common modifiers possibly even with ranges for obstacles you might encounter goes a long way. I can very much get by with ''crafting a complex or superior item is DC x and not having the right tools is -x to -y' without spelling out specifically what a souffle is or what tools you need for it etc.
My complaint is more about the proficiencies being very limited in number, being binary in nature rather, and not a significant enough amount of the end result of a given roll. THose are more fundamental system design choices that are harder to work around. You end up ignoring the proficiency and just declaring someone a decent cook, or saying you must be proficient to attempt x, etc. to try to work around what IMO is just poor quality design of the fundamentals which is masked in combat by the extensive variety of special rules that come into play. It is a fundamental decision to go with far more special abilities/feats/proficiencies/etc. as opposed to allowing anyone to try something but making it difficult enough that you need a certain level of skill for it to be realistically achievable. It actually is fundamentally a bit more restrictive design wise. Like only if you have proficiency in x weapon can you attempt to do y with it. vs. it is difficult to do y so only people with higher skill regularly attempt to pull it off. Without equal extensive special rules (which again I dislike) for non-combat stuff it ends up being not supported and thus not emphasized to players IMO. There are a ton of different abilities and feats you can get to be better at combat but far fewer to be good at social encounters or knowledges. Some do exist, and some cross over, but it certainly seems much more limited and doesn't get much attention in the official material. That does work for a dungion crawler where you are primarily in combat with some flavor and such in between but it seems very de-emphisized. You see that same ephesus in paring down how much down time activities are talked about in the DMG and placing them in supplements as well. It give the 'these are extra optional things not really the core game' vibes. Meanwhile there seems to be increased popular interest in games that have a lot more than just combat in them as far as what gets views on streaming.
I would probably honestly pick a different system than D&D if it were not for the popularity and aftermarket support for D&D. My library carries D&D books, there is a ton of content for every D&D setting and premade adventure on DM Guild, there are many people who know the system and are ready to play, etc.
The best thing I ever did as a GM and really the best thing for my local group was that I stopped trying to run games that people want me to run and started running games I want to run, the way I want to run them. As a forever GM for my group, It was very unpopular initially; some people even outright left in anger because they thought it was an unfair and uncompromising attitude but I sort of felt that, if I'm going to invest in running a game, its going to be the one I want to run. I never compromise on that. I never stopped anyone from running games, but most people are just unwilling to put in the work and even the few that attempted to run their own games couldn't really do it successfully in the end.
It was a kind of harsh period in my group, in fact, people still come to me now and again and complain but I don't really care. I mean, I run games that I think are cool, I tell stories that I think are cool and its pretty much a take it or leave it thing. I have such a large player pool that I never have trouble filling seats and frankly the games are just much much better now because I'm so into what I'm doing that the result is better than me running something I don't like running.
So my advice is, pick the game that works for you, and run that and anyone who doesn't want to play it...tough luck, let them either GM or find another GM to run the game they like. But don't torture yourself running games you don't like just because you can find players for it, that is eventually going to burn you out, its not a good long term strategy.
When it comes to skill checks, you can always just rule that characters who have, say +8 or higher on a skill (easily achievable by level 8 at the most) don't have to make a roll vs a specific scenario.
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 one thing that doesn't seem to have come up is the use of advantage and disadvantage. That's the system built in to the rules to reflect that some people are just better than others, even others who might have proficiency or expertise. If a player has written into their background that they're one of the world's greatest at a certain thing then let them roll with advantage, greatly increasing the chances of success. So long as every player gets to have something this applies to it won't become a case of favouritism but just using the tools provided
I think it's kind of a bad precedent to start using advantage and disadvantage as a way to incorporate background writing as a mechanical advantage, not so much because I think the concept is a bad idea (its actualy how similiar systems work in other RPG's like Daggerheart for example) , but because that is not really the intent of the advantage/disadvantage system in 5e specifically. Its purpose is to replace structures that were once itemized into various bonuses/penalties. For example , fighting in the rain might yield a -2 penalty on attacks in past versions of D&D, but in modern D&D you just get a disadvantage. When things were itemized it resulted in rules weight, and the adv/dis system just makes it much easier to implement. It's a very intentional abstraction.
To use this structure as a way to define backstory and background elements of a character, is to invite the debate of players calling on the system to be utilized. In a word, using it as you describe turns this into a GM fiat system where the DM must now be ultra careful that they are being fair about which parts of a background of a character's background offer an advantage/disadvantage. This works for "conditions" quite ok, because the DM is expected to GM fiat conditions (aka you're tired from X, or the rope bridge is very unstable and so on). However if you start using it as a perk or flaw of a written character background, you're turning something that is up for interpretation of someone's idea of a character.
I can see players for example saying stuff like "I should get an advantage on this attack, I trained for years with the Harper swordmasters when I was young". Why would something like that not work but something like "I'm a great chef, I should get an advantage on cooking this spider" does?
I personally think that 5e is really not equipped as a design to facilitate the sort of detail that the OP is asking for. 5e is a highly abstracted adventure RPG, and realism isn't really something that it tries to replicate with its rules. The idea of "supporting role-playing" with mechanical detail is not really what 5e does in most areas. There are generalizations like "You're athletic" because you have proficiency in Athletics, but this is very abstract because the reality is that this gives you a +2 bonus for example on a d20 roll. The difference between someone who has proficiency and doesn't is pretty negligible mathmatically. There really is no such thing as expertise in the game, which represents skill mechanics. Certainly not a layered approach where you can distinguish between "a master" and an "apprentice" in a skill.
There are games like PF2e that do this, but D&D is just not that game. You can as you describe, "wing it" with GM Fiat but again, I don't think that is what the OP is talking about here.
Why don't you try the "Trusting human judgement" as a means to impress with not standard skills?
Want to impress a noble with a dish? Describe the dish, and see if it sways your DM to consider it a pass or not. " I make a tarte tatin using apples from the noble's lands, i take care to find fine butter to caramelize the apples in, I heard he like a little spicy kick so i add some grated ginger as well nutmeg and cinnamon. Some rolled oats in the crust give it extra texture, and to really wow him/her i add some lemon zest to the clotted creme as i prepared it so it has some extra zing."
If you character has a backstory as a chef or you consistantly roll plated that you were, then your DM might just go, "That sounds amazing, Yeah that knocks his socks off." At worst you might have to explain what some of those terms mean. but you as a player put in the work to make it happen, even if the system doesn't support it, you can still do it through the power of, talking to your DM. (which is part of the system)
One of the reasons there aren't mechanics for this sort of thing, is that we as players and DMs manage to do them all the time without rules. The moment you say there are rules for something, that is when people feel closed out of them.
Before the Thief class was introduced, and they got lockpicking rules, everyone could try to pick locks or disarm traps, then no one could but the thief, and it took decades for it to shift back to 'anyone can try it, but one class has features for it' attitude. I want the fighter to be able to say "My mom used to make this pie, i am going to try and figure it out." and roleplay piecing it together instead of "You need the Savory pie feat" or whatever.
Freeform is best form, and any rules for it should be agreed upon by the table, because then it is likely meant to impact the story, and have well thought out application.
If my 300 pound tiefling impresses Bruenar Battlehammer with his Dwarven Beerbread, that is perfect opening for us to get the maps to the deep tunnels. ( this was something that actually happened at a table i played at. ) My character's mother was a Dwarf and DM even added that one of the Royal tunnel cartographers was my cousin and would guide us.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
I'm reasonably confident that the PBIF from the 2014 rules were intended to emulate other RPGs that let you make arbitrary statements about your background, but it really never got developed (a standard implementation would basically say that you get inspiration when your personality traits cause you problems or otherwise make it more difficult to succeed, and can spend inspiration when you try to do something that aligns with those traits).
What you're describing is effectively the playstyle 5e has in mind for things not covered by the rules and abstractions in the game, but it's a bit like telling a guy who wants the color Yellow ... how about you try blue, it's really great?
In the end, the OP is describing the desire for a playstyle with a granularity of rules and mechanics that 5e simply does not have and is not capable of handling. He is playing the wrong game for what he wants to achieve; it's really that simple. There are games that work as he described out there, but I do understand the dilemma he is having.
If you have a 5e D&D gaming group, people who want to play 5e D&D, and 5e is not a system that does what you want, you're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place, as all of your options kind of suck or are basically impossible. It's not really a resolvable issue.
The only question I would ask, which might be the caveat here is this. Is this rules granularity that you want in the game, what your players also want? Meaning is this a complaint the group shares with you or is it just a complaint that you have about the game? I'm making the assumption that its only the GM in this case that is having the issue with the system itself, which is the dilema.
Generally speaking, as a GM of many different kinds of games myself, my goal with any game is to translate the setting, genre and the theme of the game via the rules. In essence, any RPG is about something and how its about that is what the rules represent.
The only real charm of 5e as a game system is that it's not really "about" anything specific. It's a sort of generic power fantasy RPG that is kind of its own genre and style of play. It's not even realy D&D in the traditional sense as its not in the same genre or playstyle of any previous version of the game. In fact, its not even capable of covering genres of play those older editions cover. Its kind of its own thing and that thing it does, is what makes it the most popular RPG in the world.
Sometimes, when dealing with a group that "likes something", it doesn't necessarily mean they are incapable of liking anything else. In fact, I find universally that most gaming groups once they get away from the idea that there is only one game in the universe and actually try other games, they usually discover that playing many different types of games with lots of different variation is far more fun than just always playing the same game. But the sales pitch really shouldn't be "the rules", because the rules usually work in support of a particular genre, style or setting... so you sell those things not the rules.
Like I don't think its much of a sales pitch to say "hey we are going to play a game with more rules granularity.. because thats... fun?" I mean... it doesn't sound fun.
I think even if you have a group of 5e players, if as a GM you want to try something different, it comes down to the pitch. How are you selling the alternative to them. I don't think its hard to get people to try different games, not as hard as some people try to make it sound.
Having read close to 800 pages across two books on the subject of 'AI,' what it is, what it isn't, and many more across multiple articles, I can say with confidence that anyone saying there is no future for any company that refuses to use it does not know what he or she is talking about.
As a tool 'AI' is not at all 'mandatory.' I don't use it for work or play. And have no intention of ever using it.
And we are already seeing people forced to use it say it impedes their performance. Because they then have to fix the problems it causes. Even in the tech industry many are saying this.
It isn't as if there aren't numbers available about how it isn't at all accelerating productivity. And something like 95 percent of 'AI' startups fail. This is so obviously a bubble we are looking at. A bubble inflated by tech media and big business and big government alike.
In my workplace it has only been the cause of a decline in the quality of any text-based materials. No one wants it but those who are addicted to using it and who are then too blind to see its shortcomings.
[Redacted]
This isn't even to mention what neuro studies are now showing about its use. Erosion of people's ability to think critically. [Redacted] Science can even tell them it is bad for their brains but they don't care. That is terrifying.
It is common sense least of all scientifically backed up that if someone outsources important cognitive processes to machines that someone's brain will all but atrophy.
We have already seen at least one prominent brain expert say we are going to see things like dementia skyrocket in future decades thanks to people's having spent decades refusing to expend the mental effort to do things they could just do themselves. But no. They have grown dependent on 'AI.'
[Redacted]
Is Wizards of the Coast using it? I couldn't say.
But anyone who engages with smaller indie publishers of games, their writers, their artists, knows these people are overwhelmingly opposed to the tech because they see it as nothing short of a moral disgrace.
Run: Basic/BECMI clone of choice.
Play: 2014 D&D, 2024 D&D, Vampire: The Masquerade.
Have also run and/or played: Basic/BECMI, 1e (AD&D), 2e (AD&D), 3.x, Call of Cthulhu, Fighting Fantasy, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Cyberpunk 2020, Stormbringer/Elric!, Changeling: The Dreaming, Vampire: The Dark Ages, Legend of the Five Rings, Nobilis, The Burning Wheel, Cthulhu Dark Ages, Dark Heresy, Shadows of Esteren, Whitehack, Into the Odd, Symbaroum, and many, many others.
Here is the thing, everything you just said is a 100% accurate and it will not change the fact that A.I. already IS the single most important technology no one can ignore in the 21st century. The fact that it comes with pitfalls and horrific consequences doesn't matter.
Automobile has caused incalculable damage to the planet. Studies have shown that 50% of all usage of the internet use is for looking at ****. Nuclear energy has resulted in the creation of the most destructive weapons in human history and may just be what ends civilization one day...
You can pick any technology and find a million reasons why we shouldn't invent it or use the results, yet it is an unstoppable force and it cannot be ignored.
For all its drawbacks and potential hazards.. just like every other major advance of human civilization, A.I. is here to stay and anyone not leveraging its benefits, despite any drawbacks... is unequivocally irrelevant. For any modern day tech job, "do you know how to use A.I.?" is the first and only interview question that matters today.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorLooking through this thread, honestly there is some really tasty (honestly, I'm hungry now) constructive conversations going on on how to design around supporting roleplay. Love to see it.
There was also some healthy discussion on AI and concerns of it being used in D&D. We understand those concerns may never go away, and they're important conversations to have. I'll point towards WotC current stance on AI, but I'm afraid I'll also have to ask for that topic to be put on hold in this thread, as it is one that can get quite heated as folk naturally have strong opinions on it, and I'd hate for it to derail what is otherwise a productive thread. Remember to be gentle with each other folk, and challenge the ideas, not each other.
As for the conversation on roleplay support please do continue, some fascinating topics coming up.
D&D Beyond ToS || D&D Beyond Support
I agree with a lot of that but there are a LOT of other factors that have made D&D so popular. The historical brand strength, extensive supporting ecosystem, and large existing player base, and marketing are definitely very real factors. Even if it isn't great at what people want to do with it, there are very good reasons to stick with D&D and house rule around various issues.
What you just described IS a lack of support for out of combat things. If there is nothing on your character sheet, nothing determined by the rules, nothing helping arbitrate wither you are successful at cooking beyond your speech to the DM that means you are doing something the system doesn't actually support. I totally understand and respect the need for flexibility in any role playing system as well as the need for simplification. But you can have those things to a considerable extent and still have some rules indicating what things a given character can accomplish. D&D has that for combat. Their are all kinds of mechanics indicating what you can or can't attempt, how much you can do in a round, and how successful you are. But step out of combat and try to do something and there just is very little in way of rules arbitration, and the arbitration there is has key flaws IMO where it doesn't create very meaningful mechanical differences between characters who are supposed to be great at something and those who are not.
A good GM and Players can role play entire campaigns everything including combat with no books of any kind. The D&D books explicitly exist to add structure to collective story telling and arbitrate what a character can and can't do. And it is fairly predictable that what the system supports the most will end up being a primary focus of players when acting in the game world. Have them make the vast majority of decisions when designing a character be based on what effects each ability has with respect to combat specifically and they will be very likely to focus on combat during play. Systems that focus the overwhelming majority of their character creation on social traits or allies and enemies with very little info about combat tend to lead to very different play styles in addition to being favored by people who already have those different play styles.
The current edition of D&D IMO clearly focuses play on very detached gamified combat. Wounds don't matter much except as an expendable resource, having or not having non-combat skills make very little mechanical difference, they are really not encouraging social manipulation and character development as a play style.
As has already been pointed out, both of these are material falsehoods. Proficiency in cooks tools provides you a mechanical system, with a mechanical advantage, to being good at cooking, if you build that into your character. The rules also provide a very clear table for how to arbitrate these kinds of decisions - there is an entire table on how to set difficulty checks which can be applied to every single skill check, including a cooking one. Both these points were made before on this thread; both of them you are repeatedly choosing to disregard.
This same set of rules - tool proficiencies and the difficulty table - can apply to most every situation one can come up with.
Now, maybe you want more rules than that. Which is fine - in that case, you can play a different system or use supplemental products (including some Wizards offers here) for alternative rules. But saying there exists “nothing” under RAW is factually incorrect.
if there is no encouragement for social manipulation and Character development, then why are Deception, insight, persuasion, intimidation and Investigation skills?
Those are all social skills. I have played entire campaigns in 5E2014 that had no actual combat unless you could a mudfight with local children as a reward for them telling us what we needed to know. This was a game where we needed non combat social skills to even play.
The Rules are replete with non-combat skills, and you keep saying they don't exist. I will give an example from that campaign.
Deception: "Your lordship, the princess has not been found, we are still looking." Insight to check his reaction to that statement. He seems relieved. Intimidation " Your Lordship, the unclenching of your jaw tells me you are glad to hear your Daughter is still missing, i must inform you, that she is very much found, and safe, now if you do not wish for the queen to hear of your relief, and the letter that the kidnappers had on them, then perhaps you should start explaining yourself."
Insight check: " The fact that your guards have made no move against me tells me you have no friends in this room."
My bad for focusing so much on cooking, but for you to say that there are no out of combat skills or social aspects to the game is mind boggling. Infact all the in combat skills can be used out of combat, but only certain subclasses like the inquisitive rouge mention applying social skills to combat.
there are no Social only CLASSES, but there enough social skills, that you would have to really try hard to build a character who dind't have any of them.
My combat focused sorcerer was able to engage in social roleplay just fine with the things available during character creation, and the only spell i ever had to use in the 7 weeks this went on was MESSAGE! Now tell me again how there are no skills for that type of play.
To hammer this point home, i was the only character in this campaign that was combat optimized, because I was added last minute, and brought a character from another table.
Do you know how weird it felt to play Kardack the face melter next to a Tavern owner who never said what class he was, his two daughters who were Bards, and the Local Priest, a life Domain Cleric who's cane counted as a club if you squinted hard enough?
Want to have a conversation about social play favoring Charisma casters, that is another conversation entirely.
He/Him. Loooooooooong time Player.
The Dark days of the THAC0 system are behind us.
"Hope is a fire that burns in us all If only an ember, awaiting your call
To rise up in triumph should we all unite
The spark for change is yours to ignite."
Kalandra - The State of the World
This thread reminds me of the dichotomies of "tell me how to do x, WotC" vs "don't tell me what to do, WotC" & "roleplay" vs "rollplay" in this fandom.
For every person demanding crafting & cooking to be given serious attention or skill trees, there are just as many people who will refuse any system given because it wasn't their headcanon as to what they wanted and/or imagined. Some of these overlap, even.
Given crafting wasn't crunchy enough despite high(sic) demand, does OP honestly trust WotC to make a satisfactory cooking system, let alone a stat distribution revamp to support all possible skills for a skill tree?
Adding more skills simply won't scratch that roleplay itch the way OP is expecting or imagining in Dungeons & Dragons, nor will it fix any of the fandom dichotomies that happen whenever add-ons happen.
DM, player & homebrewer(Current homebrew project is an unofficial conversion of SBURB/SGRUB from Homestuck into DND 5e)
Once made Maxwell's Silver Hammer come down upon Strahd's head to make sure he was dead.
Always study & sharpen philosophical razors. They save a lot of trouble.
The reality of roleplaying support in RPGs is that game systems known for being more RP focused do not generally have particularly robust mechanical support for roleplaying; instead, the rules are set up with the intention of getting people to roleplay. I've seen this handled in D&D via advantage (you gave a great description of what you're going to do, have advantage) or inspiration (that was cool, gain inspiration). To the degree this extends to things like background skills, it's likely just "that's in character for you, so get a bonus" or "that's out of character, take a penalty".
I suspect the PBIF system in 2014 was intended to function in a similar way, but not properly implemented. What I would have expected is something like:
serious question, why do there need to be rules for RP?
and there were never plans to us AI to generate content, that was started by haters
Part of the question is that you first have to agree on "what is roleplaying?"
But, ultimately, however you define it (unless you define it as "what you are doing when not rolling dice", which I do not agree with):