D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[M_Natas]

how do you propose we determine whether a char knows something in a fictional world? You cannot very well rely on the player knowing it

You could roll all the checks beforehand and then tell them upfront what they know and everything they will ever find out by all the different checks, but that is rather tedious too

So, If something in game came up where a player might know something about it, I would solve it this way:
Is it lore I want the PCs to work for, like go to the dungeon of the library? Than the Character doesn't know it.
Is it something I think the Character might know and I don't necessarily need to hit it for game reasons, I see what Skill proficiencies and expertise a character has. I would also incorporate his History and other class and bg features and feats.
Like "hie fast can a swallow fly?" - expertise in Nature? You know it, for all kinds of swallows.
Proficient in nature? Is it something hard to know? A trade secret? No. So you know about swallows and their speed.
No proficiency and no Int bonus? No experience in the nature? No swallow training in your background?
Let me roll a knowledge check against your passive Nature score, maybe you know it, maybe you don't.
Swallow knowledge is common, so I roll a d20 minus 5.
If the knowledge is uncommon, I roll the knowledge check against your passive knowledge skill as a pure d20. If it is rare knowledge, d20+5 and so on. And with rare knowledge and above, characters without proficiency don't know it.
But the rolls are the last resort.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, I know. That's what I do. But its hard to always have to untrain new players ^^

Yep. Just takes getting them into the habit, though. Once they've created the new habit it goes pretty smoothly.

Like, that should be a roll for the duke to deceive against the pasosve insight of the character. If there is one. And then you tell the player "the duke is avoding eye contact when he speaks about his dead wife" or something.

No roll needed. If it is plainly visible, their is no need for a roll. If it is hidden, the character has to do something to find it.

Here's the thing about passive numbers. They represent the PC rolling the dice every moment and at the moment you the DM are looking for a number, that player rolled a 10. By making it all passive you are depriving the PC of the ability to ever notice anything hard. Hard is a 20 DC and a 20th level PC will still need an 18 or higher in intelligence or wisdom to hit a passive 20 for perception or insight.

Not only is that not realistic, but it takes away a lot of the fun of the game. Many people like rolling, but beyond that it's really fun when you hit the long shot and roll that natural 20 with your measly +5 to perception and see that very hard to find DC 25 thing.

I'll take passive perception and insight out of the game long before I ever take out active rolling. The latter harms the game too much in my opinion.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I have long complained about this, and been told the same thing: its a game. Apparently that's the answer for everything I don't like.

The thing is D&D 5e has explicit design goals. It's not that D&D is a game - it's that D&D is a specific game with specific design assumptions that you do not happen to agree with. I'm in the same boat. D&D frequently does things in a way I have strong disagreements with and others that although I understand I'm often not in the right mood for. There is nothing wrong with a gamist game like Mortal Kombat having consequence free hit points until the last one or having stun damage like Mario Kart or having injury that makes it harder for you to do things like Pathologic - but the three are not the same - and 5e made the Mortal Kombat choice where someone can make a rib-smashing move and the other person continues fighting.

5e's design decisions are very much 2e/Trad where they've deliberately filed off most of the rough edges so as many people as possible don't find anything in there to choke on and you can do a little in any direction while it doesn't support anything well.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

But, there's no opportunity cost to making an Insight check, and therefore no reason not to screech "Insight!" In every single NPC conversation. It gets really bothersome.

There is if the DM says there is. For example:

Player: "I am trying to pick up on subtle signs that indicate / tell me something about the situation I am in."
DM: "Ok, give me a DC 15 Wisdom(Insight) check. If you succeed, I'll tell you what you pick up on. If you fail, the NPC is going to find your observation unnerving and clam up."

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Then how and what would a PC use a History check for?

At our table, per the PHB, it is "to recall lore about historical events, legendary people, ancient kingdoms, past disputes, recent wars, and lost civilizations."

For example:

Player: "I look closely at the mural to see if it rings any bells about what I learned during my days working as a librarian"
DM: "Give me a DC 10 Intelligence(History) roll. Succeed and I'll tell you some important info about the mural. Fail, and you'll just get some basic, fuzzier details."

 

[Golroc]

It’s okay, there is no right or wrong way of playing, we all play for different reasons. For me and my friends, it is about telling or living a story. We tend to do short campaigns and then move on to the next, sometimes with the same characters, sometimes with new ones. And when worldbuilding, I tend to leave as much blank as possible and create as we go depending on the players actions and where I feel the story should go next.

This is one of the true strengths of 5e (or maybe just D&D in general) I feel. Everyone knows it's a bit of a wonky system with a lot of legacy cruft, but a relatively rules-light foundation, with a strong tradition to pile things on top according to taste. Some of the prior editions did stray a bit from that flexibility and make too many assumptions about the style of the players. I think that's what soured a lot of people on 4th (which had so many good thing going for it - but delivered very poorly and thus the somewhat disastrous reception) - it required too much stripping away of core rules for some players.

To me, D&D should be a game where you can tweak and add. You can even remove certain parts without too much hassle (dual-axis alignments being one I've seen ditched the most). I do feel as of late, they've started leaning a bit too heavily into their "multiverse of settings" and not giving homebrew the attention it deserves. That is a road I don't hope they continue down. Every D&D campaign shouldn't by definition take place in the multiverse - every homebrew setting shouldn't be assumed to be simply another world in this multiverse. Not WotC can force such notions upon the playerbase, but they can codify it in their published material to the point where it can end up becoming a point of conflict, and where some (often newer) GMs feel insecure about creating homebrew and how to integrate published non-core material.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is if the DM says there is. For example:

Player: "I am trying to pick up on subtle signs that indicate / tell me something about the situation I am in."
DM: "Ok, give me a DC 15 Wisdom(Insight) check. If you succeed, I'll tell you what you pick up on. If you fail, the NPC is going to find your observation unnerving and clam up."

Great idea. Not in the rules though, so those beholden to WotC won't be able to do that without player complaint.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is one of the true strengths of 5e (or maybe just D&D in general) I feel. Everyone knows it's a bit of a wonky system with a lot of legacy cruft, but a relatively rules-light foundation, with a strong tradition to pile things on top according to taste. Some of the prior editions did stray a bit from that flexibility and make too many assumptions about the style of the players. I think that's what soured a lot of people on 4th (which had so many good thing going for it - but delivered very poorly and thus the somewhat disastrous reception) - it required too much stripping away of core rules for some players.

To me, D&D should be a game where you can tweak and add. You can even remove certain parts without too much hassle (dual-axis alignments being one I've seen ditched the most). I do feel as of late, they've started leaning a bit too heavily into their "multiverse of settings" and not giving homebrew the attention it deserves. That is a road I don't hope they continue down. Every D&D campaign shouldn't by definition take place in the multiverse - every homebrew setting shouldn't be assumed to be simply another world in this multiverse. Not WotC can force such notions upon the playerbase, but they can codify it in their published material to the point where it can end up becoming a point of conflict, and where some (often newer) GMs feel insecure about creating homebrew and how to integrate published non-core material.

Homebrew isn't where the money's at, you see. WotC can't copyright your world, so they want you to pay them for theirs instead.

 

[iserith]

Great idea. Not in the rules though, so those beholden to WotC won't be able to do that without player complaint.

Failing a check can be narrated as outright failure or "progress combined with a setback" per the rules, so something like "you discover they are lying, but they also feel they gave something away and now clam up" is supported by the rules.

As well, I find if the social interaction rules in the DMG are utilized, players quickly find it's far more useful to figure out the NPC's agenda, ideal, bond, or flaw than to suss out if they are lying. Success with those tasks can help them convince the NPC to do what they want more easily.

 

[SteveC]

I split time between DMing and playing so "how are die rolls triggered" is a little different depending on which side of the house I'm on.

As a player I just ask "What does my character know about this person/place/thing/name?" And then usually the DM will ask me to make a check based on that. When the DM has an NPC say a bunch of dialogue, I will sometimes ask "do I believe them? Do I think they're telling me the truth here? Are there any telltale signs that this isn't the same person as we've dealt with before?" (That last one was because we encountered some illusion magic and we were wary of everyone we met). The DM can then tell me what they want me to roll.

Now as a DM myself, I just really want to give out information and make the players who have a lot of different skills think their investment in them was useful. As a result, I'll call for the die roll automatically. In combat, I suggest using Recall Knowledge (this is a PF2 thing) and give great results.

The thing that I really want to stress is that how you get to the information shouldn't depend on how you can ask the question. My players are different (as I'm sure everyone who's reading this are too) and if you guard information or actions based on your perception of the right way to do things, you will end up with players who can't play with you despite being really engaged and fun players.