D&D 5E Not liking Bounded Accuracy

[Ovinomancer]

If you are reduced to making such absurd arguments, you've lost.

The simple fact is that when you make a ruling, you have changed the rules. That rule now has different language that includes your ruling for all future similar instances at your house, making it a different rule than the one used at my house. Engage in fallacies all you like. You still won't change that fact.

I'm illustrating that the absurdity lies in your argument about houserules.

The referee in sports is supposed to make calls within the rules. Doing so doesn't change or add to the rules. It's not a houserule for a ref to call a foul or not call a foul. Another, older term for DM is referee -- ie, the DM makes calls in game within the rules of the game. Those aren't houserules either. You defining houserule as any rules adjudication or change literally means that you cannot play the game within the rules, as doing so means you're houseruling.

So, 1) you've changed the accepted definition of houserule, which usually means an intentional change to the rules, not an adjudication within the rules; and 2) you've ensured that any debate on rules with you is only answerable by referring to your definition of houserules, which, as defined by you, means that there cannot be a shared experience across multiple groups. Your argument is the absurdity, here, not my pointing it out.

 

[Maxperson]

How is it a house rule when the rules specifically leave something up to the DM. I haven't changed the rules in the slightest. The rule can say that the results are the purview of the DM. Stealth rules in 5e are a perfect example of this. It is entirely up to me to allow or disallow a stealth check. The results of a persuasion check are also left to the DM. Adjudication does not equal house rules. House rules are when you specifically change the rules. When rules are flexible enough to allow adjudication by some sort of referee, that's not changing the rules.

You're confused. Stating the results of an action is not a ruling, rule or adjudication. Following the rules and not allowing a check is also not what is being discussed here. What is being discussed here are alterations to the rules. Those times when the rule fails to say what to do in a situation and the DM needs to make a decision on how to alter the rule in order to close the gap in the rules.

Granting different results from the same check depending on training or not is a house rule. Granting a greater result to one character for achieving a higher check is simply adjudication.

Since the rules do not allow the DM to do that, changing the rules in order to allow the DM to grant a greater result is a house rule.

 

[Maxperson]

And what a terrible loss that would be.

Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion?

 

[Orlax]

So are you advocating inconsistent rulings? Where one time the DM rules one way, and another time in the exact same circumstance he rules a different way? Because that's the only way that the rule doesn't change. If the DM is going to be consistent and rule the same way under the same circumstances, the rule has changed. If a DM pulled inconsistent rulings on me, I'd walk out of his game. I don't play with DMs who make rulings by coin toss.



Changing a ruling because it was a wrong call is simply altering your house rule from one thing to another. It's no different from me creating a house rule from scratch for my game and then altering it later because I made an error with it.

Rarely if ever are we in the exact same set of circumstances, hence the same adjudication may not be necessary or proper for similar situations. Also. Feel free to bounce up off my table. I'm here to have fun, and if rules, or a rules lawyer are getting in the way of that I have no time for them. I'm playing D&D, I'm not controlling the freaking missiles. My players have fun, I have fun, there's very little need for rules extremism in that equation. Absolute consistency is unnecessary. I can almost always describe some kind of difference between one set of circumstances and another so as to account for the difference in adjudication. Mainly because I'm making everything up for the most part and am in no way beholden to writing down what I invent. If I had a player consistently attempting to insist on how things should be adjudicated because he thinks that's how they've been adjudicated in the past, well I wouldn't let that player hang around too long because they'd keep holding up my game with needless BS. I have about 4 hours a week to hang out with my friends and play D&D, it is essentially my stand in for the more traditional poker night. It is a casual game among friends, and not a one of them would commit to your level of extremism concerning my imagination game.

 

[Maxperson]

How often are you going to be looking at the exact same circumstances in any of these examples (stealth, persuasion etc)?

I have had circumstances repeat. It doesn't matter, though, so long as you are setting a rule for those circumstances should it ever come up again, it never actually has to come up again to be a rule. Otherwise a good chunk of RAW would not be rules as they aren't used. A few months ago I used the underwater fighting rules for the first time in 20 years. That the circumstances for underwater fighting never came up didn't mean that those rules weren't rules.

 

[bmcdaniel]

Absolutely I would. I'm not about to invalidate a player's choices just because of background. What's the point of rolling if results are going to be filtered through whatever I happen to think is more relevant? Maybe the historian character read a book. It's pretty easy to narrate.

Sure its possible to narrate anything. But to me denying the drow elf the knowledge that she should have based on her background seems like a more severe invalidation of her choice to be a drow elf from this particular city.

Yup. The Dragonborn might slip. Note the sea elf would have a swim speed no? That would obviously make a difference.

I'd give both the same DC and if the halfling succeeded and the Dragonborn failed, I'd narrate that quite easily. The Dragonborn slipped while the nimble halfling pushed through.

But the question at hand is, what happens when they both succeed with the same number? Even if we do apply your modifiers, what happens when they both score the same success?

Sure I would have different results even if their (adjusted) roll was the same. Let me sharpen the example: instead of wading through the stream, suppose the PCs are trying to jump across a 5 foot stream with 2 foot high rocks sticking out the stream. Two PCs both have an (adjusted) result of 10. One of the PCs has 16 Str, and the other has 6 Str. I would let the 16 Str PC clear the obstacle, while the 6 Str PC would not. Would you rule that they both succeed (or fail) the same?

 

[Maxperson]

However to make that call the referee must determine intent, doing so is an adjudication.

I disagree. Intent has nothing to do with it. Only the results matter. Should the pass be too close to the basket, it will be goal tending regardless of intent.

Of course it does. The DM must determine what kind of check, if any, is needed to both jump on and off the chandelier. It could be athletics, acrobatics, straight dexterity, etc. In addition, does the jump on and off included the use of some movement distance. Does attacking while swinging on the chandelier require anything more than an attack role? Maybe a strength or athletics or acrobatics check to hang on? These are all rulings.

They aren't rulings that require changes to the rules like I have been stating are house rules. I have explicitly been discussing rulings that change the rules. The kind that are needed to close gaps in the rules. No gap of any kind is closed when the DM is deciding on swinging from a chandelier. The rules cover the whole attempt.

 

[Eejit]

I have had circumstances repeat. It doesn't matter, though, so long as you are setting a rule for those circumstances should it ever come up again, it never actually has to come up again to be a rule. Otherwise a good chunk of RAW would not be rules as they aren't used. A few months ago I used the underwater fighting rules for the first time in 20 years. That the circumstances for underwater fighting never came up didn't mean that those rules weren't rules.

Have you had them repeat exactly? Because if not it's rulings, not rules. Look at hiding in mist - mist isn't a binary on/off thing in real life, you get infinite degrees of it. Making a call on whether there's enough mist together with other factors for a character to hide in doesn't mean you're making a rule for "hiding in mist" which you can carry forwards.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm illustrating that the absurdity lies in your argument about houserules.

Engaging in fallacies doesn't illustrate absurdities. It just makes your argument logically invalid. The extent that you took it went waaaaaaaay out of bounds of what I have been arguing, so you lost any point you were trying to make.

The referee in sports is supposed to make calls within the rules. Doing so doesn't change or add to the rules. It's not a houserule for a ref to call a foul or not call a foul. Another, older term for DM is referee -- ie, the DM makes calls in game within the rules of the game. Those aren't houserules either. You defining houserule as any rules adjudication or change literally means that you cannot play the game within the rules, as doing so means you're houseruling.

That's a horrible analogy. The DM is not acting as a referee when he changes the rules. He only acts as a referee when he is following the rules exactly in his rulings. The instant the group hits a gap that the rules don't cover, he is no longer a referee and is a game master who has the right and authority to change the rules in order to close that gap.

So, 1) you've changed the accepted definition of houserule, which usually means an intentional change to the rules, not an adjudication within the rules;

Another Strawman. I've never claimed that the DM following the rules is a house rule. I have only ever said that closing gaps in the rules which always requires a rules change, and other intentional changes to rules are house rules.

 

[Maxperson]

Have you had them repeat exactly? Because if not it's rulings, not rules. Look at hiding in mist - mist isn't a binary on/off thing in real life, you get infinite degrees of it. Making a call on whether there's enough mist together with other factors for a character to hide in doesn't mean you're making a rule for "hiding in mist" which you can carry forwards.

Re-read what I said, because this response isn't a counter for it.