@
Manbearcat : please keep in mind 5e has been built from the ground up with this foundational "rulings" aspect. The system is really very robust wrt DM's judgement.
To resolve an action the DM has to pick a level on the scale auto-success > advantage > normal > disadvantage > auto-failure, and maybe pick a stat and decide if proficiency applies. Note that :
* the stacking rules is meant to be the least toxic, as the disconnect between a player's expectation and the DM's call should differ by at most one step on the resolution scale.
* bounded accuracy means the actual odds of success won't change drastically, whatever the DM decides.
* the game is built to use dice and a DM screen. This device means a player can not and should not know precisely if he has to put the blame on bad luck or adversarial DMing.
These 3 features combined should ensure "rulings, not rules" doesn't strain trust too much.
I also think there are places where the design team hasn't done that great a job to demine potential conflict. I specifically call out Surprise as an obvious offender, as it is an area mostly left to DM fiat where the decisions are potentially devastating.
If I may, I'm going to respond with a recent play example of a Dungeon World game I'm running and juxtapose those play procedures, GMing agenda and principles versus how I think those things might work out in 5e.
Here is the actual scene if you want to see it all together (and if you need more background info).
Briefly:
1) When the players arrived at a highland's settlement that has been too long out of contact with its sister settlement at the base of the mountains, they could hear deranged whispers that began to drive them to terrible thoughts and filled their minds with horrific images. A prior encounter with a Winter Wolf and his pack foretold an infectious madness.
2) Old dog, who appears to be deaf, is seemingly the only surviving member of a settlement where everyone is either dead or assimilated into some kind of aberration collective.
3) While the PCs battle this horror, effectively rescuing the dog, the canine takes off out of the settlement.
4) There are clues as to what happened here and where some refugees may have gone, but nothing firm.
5) PC Ranger has a magical primal tattoo that allows her to speak with wild beasts. While "other stuff' is going on back at the settlement, she is going to attempt to track down this dog, befriend her and bring her back to try to communicate and confirm what may have happened and where the refugees went.
Ok. As a truly "rules-lite", abstract conflict resolution system, Dungeon World handles this affair, its dramatic momentum/complications/resolution/fallout, with some very basic components; (a) the unified resolution mechanics, (b) the GM's agenda/principles/rules, (c) intuitive and straightforward play procedures (conversation between GM and players creating framed-fiction > player action declarations > resolved actions > evolved fiction and repetition of steps until the situation is full resolved). The players and GM both know all of these things and there is virtually no mental overhead expended on adjudicating how various rules components intersect (and what should come out of them).
So the player of the Ranger declares that, despite the incoming blizzard, the dead of night, and the ever-present danger of exposure (think high fantasy Afghanistan in dead of winter) and monsters...that she wants to find this dog and bring her back before the blizzard comes in. Lets take it from the top:
Dungeon World
She goes to the last spot she saw the dog before she lost sigh of her (the apex of the hill where the open gates to the settlement lie) and player makes her Ranger move Hunt and Track which is triggered by the fiction of
when you follow a trail of clues left behind by passing creatures. She rolls a 10 +. The outcome of a 10+ is stipulated in the move, thus binding the GM to the outcome. As such, she follows the creature’s trail until there’s a significant change in its direction or mode of travel and
determines what caused the trail to end. That last bit is up to the GM, but I can easily look to the stipulations of the basic resolution mechanics and the GMing agenda/principles and to determine best practices here:
* Follow the rules
* Make a move that follows from the fiction
* Portray a fantastic world
* Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
* Play to find out what happens
* Be a fan of the characters
* Think dangerous
If I decided "what determines the trail to end is that the dog has frozen to death", I would be violating pretty much all of those (which neatly ties into the way that @
pemerton 's GM's behaved and the implications on play). So I decide that she is certainly alive, but afraid, starving (the players already knew this), and resting in a freshly dug hole in a snowdrift (for cover against the oncoming storm and possible lurking predators).
Now, the player needs to try to win her trust. She believes that she is deaf (due to stuff that happened prior), so she is pretty sure that normal communication is going to be difficult. As such, she doesn't just try normal conversation. She tries to assume a nonthreatening, friendly posture, and gives her an offering of food. This triggers the Parley move with the leverage being the food (not to mention friendship and security) that the dog desperately wants.
Well, this doesn't go so well. She neither rolls a success (10 +) nor a success with complications (7-9). She rolls an outright failure (6-) which triggers a GM move that follows from the present fiction (which is fair game, but as always, should follow the rules, agenda, and principles). I decide that the fallout from this which would best "fill her life with adventure", "portray a fantastic world", "be dangerous", "follow from the fiction", and "let us find out what happens (keeping the dramatic momentum)" would be the below:
Per Manbearcat
Her ears perk up. The dog looks interested in your offering. However, if she is deaf she doesn't need ears to perceive the thundering herd of reindeer bearing down on you. She, like you, can feel it in the ground. Your mind is ushered back to the Winter Wolf's words regarding a maddened realm near the two great bodies of water in the highlands where "...herds of reindeer would stampede each other and tear each other, and themselves, to pieces." Whether they're simply running from the fury of the storm that is hot on their tails or deranged creatures intent on your harm is impossible to say at this distance (far, 10 creatures).
The scared dog abruptly bounds out of her carved hole and rushes to your position where she might see the obscured threat. When she sees what is on its way, she tucks her tail between her legs and runs in a circle behind you, looking to you with uncertain eyes.
The reindeer are closing fast.
Amongst the list of GM moves, that is, of course
Show signs of an approaching threat. I'll stop there because this post is long enough, but this situation could have forked into any number of ways depending on future player action declaration, resolution, and my reframing of the fiction (and following the rules, agenda, principles).
5e
There are lots of rules in 5e (especially when compared to a system like DW). I've looked through the Basic DMG PDF for 5e, and I don't see any analogue to DW's transparent and focused agenda and principles for Gamesmastering. I'm certain that this neutral (lacktherof) voice is intentional (as its perceived that it helps open up play to various, already established, styles). But I don't find it helpful. For instance, consider the above conflict. The noncombat action resolution system appears to be a mish-mash of micro task resolution (focused on process sim with tight zoom spatially and temporally) and macro conflict resolution (focused on abstract resolution of intent/stakes with zoomed out spatial and temporal concerns - or none at all).
So, I'm running 5e and this Ranger wants to track down that dog. What is the play procedure? It says the GM has to pick the ability score that should be involved. Wisdom and Survival look good to me.
p62 of player PDF
The DM might ask you to make a Wisdom (Survival) check to follow tracks, hunt wild game, guide
your group through frozen wastelands...
Well that sounds just about perfect, right? Ok, now I've got to set a DC as it says that is my responsibility as well. The text indicates that I'm supposed to do this from a process-sim perspective; "based on the difficulty of the task." My players might think it is a pretty trivial task because of the depths of the snow and the freshness of the tracks. However, while I'll grant them freshness of the tracks, I might think the depth of the snow (and the propensity for collapse and trail obscurement and/or difficulty of movement) actually serves to make things more difficult rather than easier. Further, the limited visibility, and the whipping winds from the oncoming storm actually serve to make the task not only nontrivial (Very Easy or Easy), not only not Medium, but Hard. That is a potential difference of 15 in the DC. That "makes sense to me" so it doesn't matter how they feel about it (if they feel anything at all as apparently lots of folks don't care about that disparity of perception of difficulty of task or don't even think about it in the first place).
Regardless of their misgivings of the DC, they pass their (let's call it) 30ish % chance to succeed. Ok. Lets move the fiction forward. One problem. I don't have any idea if this Survival roll is supposed to be of the task resolution variety or conflict resolution variety. There are no stipulations and nothing to bind/guide the fallout of this action resolution attempt. Does that mean that she successfully tracks down the dog...regardless of how far the dog might be? It sort of seems like this check is supposed to be driven by a conflict resolution ethos ("the creature overcomes the challenge at hand" - tracking the dog to its current location). Meaning she tracks the dog all the way to its current, no matter if 20 miles or 2 and no matter what else is going on, and we should be transitioning directly to that moment of discovery. I think that is the intent given the aforementioned "success" part of the rules language.
Ok, so we're at the dog. The PC wants to win her trust. Because of the DC range being based on the difficulty of the task, am I supposed to now roll an Insight check for the dog to determine its initial Reaction to the PC's sudden presence (but with nonthreatening mannerisms). If so, how do I set the DC for that and does success for the dog on its Insight mean a lower DC for the player in their subsequent "win the dog's trust" check. That seems sensible to me. Or can I just eschew the Reaction check and come up with my own Reaction (thus base DC to "win the dog's trust") for the dog.
On to the "win the dog's trust" check. Charisma check? Animal Handling is Wisdom and is about calming/handling domesticated animals? However, the Ranger can speak to wild beasts. Persuasion? Persuasion seems to be about influencing someone/people using tact, social graces, and good nature. Does the domesticated animal count as a person now because she and the Ranger share a common language (thus transcending her "domesticated animal" status)? Well, the Ranger is probably hoping for Animal Handling and Wisdom due to proficiency and stat distribution. Not particularly sure on this. Perhaps Persuasion > Charisma > Lower DC due to the offering of food (which is just "skilled play" and not resource management as it really costs the PCs nothing, as it actually is a precious resource in DW, and is basically just some color) > Advantage (due to the Ranger's magical ability to speak to wild beasts)? Or maybe I give the PC Inspiration to spend for discovering the dog's Trait of "starving to death" and using that as leverage. There is the other option of just "saying yes" due to the prior established fiction and the Ranger's ability to speak with wild beasts. Not sure how all of this intersects. And I don't have any focused agenda or principles to guide me here.
Regardless of what play procedures I choose regarding Insight/Reaction, subsequent DC, and the "win the dog's trust" action resolution, the Ranger fails. According to the rules text:
p58 Player PDF
Otherwise, it’s a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM.
Does "make no progress toward the objective" establish a firm "loss condition" whereby the stakes need to be resolved, the player goals denied, and fallout tallied? "Progress toward objective" seems to imply that the "loss condition" may not have been met. If that is the case, when is the "loss condition" met? What's more, there is direct "Fail Forward" advice following that. "Fail forward" towards what and how (no GM agenda/principles which focus/narrow my mental overhead and thus bind my decision-making regarding "what comes next")?
It seems legitimate GMing to do precisely what I did in DW, fill the PC's life with adventure, and show signs of an approaching threat...give them another opportunity to win the trust of the dog if they can prove their intentions by actions rather than words. However, I'm 100 % certain, given conversations I've had on this board about my various usage of Fail Forward and "Shrodinger's This or That", that a large number of folks would balk HARD at that handling of the situation and feel that a process-sim approach should be applied; eg - the dog should now have an established negative reaction toward the ranger, thus closing out the immediate prospects of any positive relationship between the Ranger and the dog (perhaps the dog should run off or act like a terrified animal backed into a corner...and combat ensues). Thus the sought information is no longer attainable from the dog.
If, however, folks do find it kosher to "make something interesting happen" as a result of the failed "befriend dog" resolution, what is on the table and what is off the table? How should I approach it? Deftly and not-heavy-handedly handling "off-screen" stuff is one of the most important skills of GMing. What sort of "Shrodinger's Stuff" is on the table here and what is off?
And finally, lets say that I do pull out the maddened reindeer herd. I can't find anything on Encounter Distance and any play procedures to establish how this should work out. Do I roll a Perception check for the reindeer herd? Do I then establish the DC based on the medium DC > distance (and how would I figure out what that distance should be?...Ranger rolls a Perception check and the higher they roll is the distance between the PC and the thundering herd?) moving the DC to hard (or not) > Dim Light moving it to very hard > and then possibly Disadvantage due to the concealment of light snow flurries? Well that is no trouble at all. There is no way they make that check. They aren't "filling the PC's life with adventure". They're a non-event.
Or...can I just say "They're coming right for you and they're closing fast!...what do you do!?"
Blargh. That was waaaaaay longer than I had intended. Anyway, just some thoughts on the extreme difference in GM overhead and the lack of clarity on agenda, principles, resolution mechanics, and general play procedures (specifically where various rules intersect...especially when there are different levels of abstractions, specificity, and interpretation involved in those intersections) between the two systems.
heheheh. [Seliousry though, nice chart. 
