D&D 5E D&D Next Design Goals (Article)

[Incenjucar]

Yup. That's my point. Judgment calls are intrinsic to the game. And for me, rolling for mundane is just pointless. And, that includes swinging on a chandelier. Does it make sense that you could? Then, yes, you can.

I'm calling for rolls when there is an actual conflict. Not when I'm trying to figure out whether someone can see something, jump on something, walk down a hallway, hold their arm up for long durations while carrying a torch, etc.

You can always just ignore whatever rules are present.

I've turned standard monsters into minions mid-combat on more than one occasion, when we've run into time issues. You're allowed to do these things! But I still want rules so I don't HAVE to do these things more often.

 

[Greg K]

How do you resolve the chandelier in say, 4E? An Acrobatics or Athletics check right? But... You're setting the DC too right? How do you arrive at that DC? Is it an easy task? A hard task?

In 3e, I use the "Common Standard" (i.e., how difficult I think it would it be for an average adult human and no training) as discussed by one of the designers (I think it was Jonathan Tweet) in Dragon right about the time 3e was released. I also take into account some of the advice for assigning bonuses/penalties to die rolls or the DC from the DMG

So, there is some fiat involved, but fiat with guidelines.

 

[P1NBACK]

If you think you're catching me in some kind of trap, you're extremely confused about this conversation. DM fiat is not a dirty word, it is just not the ideal resolution mechanic for many people.

I'm not trying to trap you, dude. I'm just trying to get across my point.

I guess my point is: I don't need resolution mechanics for things solved easily through normal conversation and roleplay.

Conflicts between people are not easily resolved, and so certainly need some sort of resolution mechanic. Basic tasks of moving and interacting with the game world don't.

If you need resolution mechanics for that, fine. I don't care. I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily. Just not my cup o' tea. More power to you.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

How do you resolve the chandelier in say, 4E? An Acrobatics or Athletics check right? But... You're setting the DC too right? How do you arrive at that DC? Is it an easy task? A hard task?

I would actually use the DC of a standing long jump for the distance described. Dropping down safely has its own DC. It's only if the player wanted his character to do something fancy on dismount that I'd have to start thinking "Easy/Moderate/Hard" or "Page 42."

In my opinion, the DM is always making these judgments. Adding in a "roll" doesn't remove those judgments.

Never said it did. You're the one taking "DM Fiat" as a slap in the face. Adding the roll rewards characters who have devoted resorces in the skill system to the activities they enjoy doing. It adds more variables then just getting a yes/no answer from the DM. Some people like that. It's OK if you don't. Just stop telling us it's sad if we don't like your way.

So, you're saying you use "DM's Fiat". Got it.

Yes, but less than you do. My first thought is always toward any specific rule. My second thought always goes toward rules that are similar to what a character is trying to accomplish with his actions.* My final thought is DM Fiat. Easy/Moderate/Hard DCs and Page 42 both help give 4E DM guidance when using DM Fiat.

*For example: A player once wanted to carry a table with him to shield himself from missile fire. There are obviously no specific rules for carrying a table. The rule it most closely hewed to was Cover. Carrying the table allowed him to take cover. Weight and encumbrance also came to mind. I had to estimate what a table of that size would weigh and compared that to his Strength. I required that he use two hands to heft something of that size around without dragging it (effectively slowing him). Other than that, action economy thoughts of minor action to pick up, free action to set down. All this took less time to adjudicate at the table than to type here.

 

[Incenjucar]

I'm not trying to trap you, dude. I'm just trying to get across my point.

I guess my point is: I don't need resolution mechanics for things solved easily through normal conversation and roleplay.

Conflicts between people are not easily resolved, and so certainly need some sort of resolution mechanic. Basic tasks of moving and interacting with the game world don't.

If you need resolution mechanics for that, fine. I don't care. I don't think that's a bad thing necessarily. Just not my cup o' tea. More power to you.

It's a preference, not a need. I don't need a game to tell a good story to begin with, I just prefer it, because it provides for more surprises for me. I like being able to honestly be amazed at what the players have pulled off rather than nodding my head because I let them do a thing.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Yup. That's my point. Judgment calls are intrinsic to the game. And for me, rolling for mundane is just pointless. And, that includes swinging on a chandelier. Does it make sense that you could? Then, yes, you can.

I'm calling for rolls when there is an actual conflict. Not when I'm trying to figure out whether someone can see something, jump on something, walk down a hallway, hold their arm up for long durations while carrying a torch, etc.

I agree wholeheartedly with you, except I would consider the jump to the chandelier while being chased by someones goons an actual conflict. So I like a resolution mechanic that allows for risk of failure in tense situations.

 

[P1NBACK]

Yes, but less than you do. My first thought is always toward any specific rule. My second thought always goes toward rules that are similar to what a character is trying to accomplish with his actions.* My final thought is DM Fiat. Easy/Moderate/Hard DCs and Page 42 both help give 4E DM guidance when using DM Fiat.

Ok? I use a similar process. I just don't need as many rules covering as many things. If anything, those things just slow down my game. You're the one who asked how I resolved something and then condescendingly responded with the "DM Fiat" comment.

Seriously. You could have said, "That's fine. I would have done it this way."

Instead, there is a condescending tone. So, you can imagine why I would react to your DM Fiat comments with suspicion.

*For example: A player once wanted to carry a table with him to shield himself from missile fire. There are obviously no specific rules for carrying a table. The rule it most closely hewed to was Cover. Carrying the table allowed him to take cover. Weight and encumbrance also came to mind. I had to estimate what a table of that size would weigh and compared that to his Strength. I required that he use two hands to heft something of that size around without dragging it (effectively slowing him). Other than that, action economy thoughts of minor action to pick up, free action to set down. All this took less time to adjudicate at the table than to type here.

And, I don't think this situation and outcome is very dissimilar from what would also occur in my game.

So, if the outcomes are similar, what does it matter that you had a "cover" rule and I used a "shield" rule to make my judgment call? Or, you used strength and I used the encumbrance chart and items as tall as a character require two hands to carry?

The vibe I'm getting from you guys is that "DM Fiat" is bad so we have to minimize it. And, I'm saying, you're still doing DM Fiat even in this so-called rules based circumstances. DM judgment is what makes the game so amazing. And, instead of an extra 100 rules trying to "minimize" DM judgment, I'd rather have clear guidelines for having the best possible DM judgment calls made.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Also a vote in favor of "DM Fiat" not in any way being a prejorative. In fact, it is positively a good thing. The best kind of DM Fiat is when the DM knows the system well enough to say something like, "Hey, we can play this out by the procedure if you guys want, but if we do, it will likely take 30 minutes and result in X. If you want, we can simply narrate that X happens and move on. Or if playing it out sounds like fun, we can do that." That is classic informed DM Fiat.

To the extent that DM Fiat gets a bad rap, it's because of DMs forgetting to exercise their common sense, DMs without the slightest clue how something would work in reality (or the underlying fiction) but convinced that know it well, or--often the very worst--DMs that have played a system so long that they have mistaken their twisted rationalization of what the system models into strong dogma about what the system does.

Fiat and mechanics are not opposed, but in sync. Bad mechanics typically lead to bad fiat. Good mechanics do the opposite. It's a lot like law in that respect.

 

[P1NBACK]

I agree wholeheartedly with you, except I would consider the jump to the chandelier while being chased by someones goons an actual conflict. So I like a resolution mechanic that allows for risk of failure in tense situations.

Sure. It depends on the circumstances. If the guy had gotten close (as I mentioned in my original thread), I would have had him try to knock the PC off or something. Then we go to the dice.

There was mention earlier about rules empowering players. I disagree. I think sound judgment calls empower players.

I've sat at the table as a player and my "fair shake" with DCs made up by the DM. "Oh, that's DC 40..." Wtf? I can't even roll that high. Why not just tell me, "No, it's too far. You'll fall right to the floor."

Better yet, I prefer a good mix of the two, like Apocalypse World's "moves" that allow a GM to call for rolls when the situation might have failure, like your tense situation, but the GM isn't setting any DCs. The PC just rolls and gets partial success, success or failure based on what they roll.

But, even then, there's still GM judgment to call for that roll in the first place. Of course, AW gives excellent guidelines on when to call for rolls and whatnot. So, it's a balancing act.

 

[Incenjucar]

Instead, there is a condescending tone. So, you can imagine why I would react to your DM Fiat comments with suspicion.

The vibe I'm getting from you guys is that "DM Fiat" is bad so we have to minimize it. And, I'm saying, you're still doing DM Fiat even in this so-called rules based circumstances. DM judgment is what makes the game so amazing. And, instead of an extra 100 rules trying to "minimize" DM judgment, I'd rather have clear guidelines for having the best possible DM judgment calls made.

You have failed your insight check.

Some DMs like to avoid DM fiat whenever possible. That isn't because DM fiat is bad, but because its traits are not the preferred traits.

I do not especially care for seafood. I'll eat it if it's what's there, and it doesn't taste bad to me, but I never have a craving for it.

That doesn't mean I'm saying seafood is bad, it means that I prefer not-seafood. It also doesn't mean anyone is sneering at you if you are a sushi hound.