D&D General Styles of D&D Play

[Oofta]

What that means is, every infiltration attempt will fail. Because the DM will simply keep throwing checks until one fails, and then the whole thing falls apart because every fail is a catastrophic failure. There are no degrees of failure. Did you fail your deception check? Yes, then the other person automatically sees through your disguise and raises the alarm.

Every.... single... time.

That's bad DMing or a player attempting something impossible. If it's the latter I'd just tell them it's impossible. But if it was a skill challenge it wouldn't automatically change anything, after all you can't repeat skills without penalty. Make the skill challenge tough enough and those 3 failures will accumulate anyway. If you feel what is happening isn't fun or fair you need to talk to the DM. Changing how the DM is setting the PC up for failure doesn't change anything.

Oh, and just like 4E, 5E talks about success at a cost when the PC fails.

 

[Neonchameleon]

A big issue in the wrestling community for a while was that the bookers of the 2 main companies were biased as heck. They only booked certain types of wrestlers to get TV time, good feuds, and wins. They booked their favorite styles of wrestlers. There were other wrestlers of the styles they didn't like but they didn't get focus or time.

And that's basically what I see in D&D.
You want to see a powerhouse slam a guy who did them wrong and win the title but the booker wont get them a match over 5 minutes nor a title run over a month or so with the midcard belt.

I like the metaphor. But the bookers of every promotion have always been biased as heck and that is part of the point. 3.X had a bloated roster - but everyone who wasn't a high flying spot monkey (a spellcaster with 9th level spells) was a jobber. (And even the "jobber spot monkey" of the sorcerer would be put over anyone who wasn't a spot monkey). The 4e bookers preferred technically skilled cruiserweights and longer matches and all the fans of the spots got pissed off, and they'd been the most vocal fans.

Meanwhile 5e cut the roster and tried to get people cheering for the entire tiny roster (I referred to the pre-Crit Role years of 5e as the "Mothballs Edition"). But did go in on diversity and trying to pump everyone they kept. And went for an old and tested roster.

 

[Hussar]

Like Rime of the Frostmaiden and Out of the Abyss?

Out of the Abyss is a survival campaign? Really? That's news to me. Same with Rime.

 

[hgjertsen]

Out of the Abyss is a survival campaign? Really? That's news to me. Same with Rime.

Even Tomb of Annihilation is arguably not one, despite being a hexcrawl and, in my view, a pretty fun campaign. 5E just does not support a type of survival gameplay which relies on tracking down sources of food and water so the play must be augmented by turning it into a "fight random encounters" or "chart a path through the wilderness" survival, which is fine but not really the nitty gritty stuff you might expect.

 

[Imaro]

Out of the Abyss is a survival campaign? Really? That's news to me. Same with Rime.

I don't know what to say except maybe... read them...

 

[hgjertsen]

I don't know what to say except maybe... read them...

Lol that's so snarky and for no reason because "surviving monsters while navigating the underdark" is barely survival because combat and finding out where to go are in EVERY campaign while worrying about food, water, and weather aren't.

 

[Hussar]

Oh, and just like 4E, 5E talks about success at a cost when the PC fails.

Can you please stop with the edition warring? Is that really too much to ask?

No, 5e does not talk about success at a cost, "just like 4e". It really doesn't. 5e presents skills as binary pass/fail. There's a bit of advice buried in the DMG about the notion of degrees of success or failure, but, there's nothing about the notion of success at a cost. There's barely any advice on the notion of group checks.

But, then, why would you want any sort of success at a cost? That's just rollplay, right? After all, you can only have success at a cost if you're rolling checks. ANd, you have REPEATEDLY claimed that that's rollplay and not something you want to do. So, which is it? Freeform roleplay or roll play?

 

[Imaro]

Even Tomb of Annihilation is arguably not one, despite being a hexcrawl and, in my view, a pretty fun campaign. 5E just does not support a type of survival gameplay which relies on tracking down sources of food and water so the play must be augmented by turning it into a "fight random encounters" or "chart a path through the wilderness" survival, which is fine but not really the nitty gritty stuff you might expect.

ToA isn't a survival adventure. OotA deals with scrounging for food and Rime with surviving adverse weather conditions. ToA is more of a hexcrawl/sandbox exploration adventure.

 

[hgjertsen]

ToA isn't a survival adventure. OotA deals with scrounging for food and Rime with surviving adverse weather conditions. ToA is more of a hexcrawl/sandbox exploration adventure.

Goodberry is a first level spell

 

[Hussar]

Even Tomb of Annihilation is arguably not one, despite being a hexcrawl and, in my view, a pretty fun campaign. 5E just does not support a type of survival gameplay which relies on tracking down sources of food and water so the play must be augmented by turning it into a "fight random encounters" or "chart a path through the wilderness" survival, which is fine but not really the nitty gritty stuff you might expect.

I mean, really Tomb of Annhilation needed to make raise dead nearly impossible in order to actually make the notion of survival a real threat. That's how far outside the way the game is written to even begin to go down this road.