D&D 5E How to Adjudicate Actions in D&D 5e

iserith · Jun 3, 2015

More simply put and theory aside, you appear to be pointing out an issue of expectations which in my experience is easily discussed and resolved during Session Zero before play begins. I would tell someone like Greg how I'm going to do things, ask for his buy-in to try something that perhaps he has never done before, and then we'll proceed to have a blast playing D&D 5e together.

Greg Benage · Jun 3, 2015

iserith said:
More simply put and theory aside, you appear to be pointing out an issue of expectations which in my experience is easily discussed and resolved during Session Zero before play begins. I would tell someone like Greg how I'm going to do things, ask for his buy-in to try something that perhaps he has never done before, and then we'll proceed to have a blast playing D&D 5e together.

I've tried it. For most of the 90s, I did almost none of the exploration-focused gaming I prefer these days (although, when I decided to do it professionally, I choose to jump in with Blue Planet, which is intensely exploration-focused, and I expect that wasn't an accident). But most of that decade was occupied with story and genre-emulation. I played Everway, Theatrix, Over the Edge, Unknown Armies and lots of story-focused one-offs and campaigns with more traditional games, especially Pendragon and Call of Cthulhu.

That's why I was pretty sure what you were up to, though I wanted you to elaborate.

Like I said, though, I'm not a zealot. It's a preference, not a religion, and my preferences have changed and changed back again over the years. They may change again in the future.

While it is perhaps overly theory-laden, I do agree with Manbearcat that at times (I emphatically agree that you do not use the more narrative techniques in all or even most of your examples) your approach will very sharply clash with the kind of exploration-focused game I prefer. I don't think this can be avoided when you offer a narrative twist or story development as the outcome of a task. That's okay -- it enables other experiences that "simulationist" task resolution doesn't, and those experiences can be hugely enjoyable to many players. Even me...it's just not my preference. There are a number of reasons that I've come around to (or back to) that preference, but this isn't the time or place.

The Crimson Binome · Jun 3, 2015

Manbearcat said:
If I ran a sim game for (say) @Saelorn, he (she?) would have an absolute ball, regardless of my lack of enjoyment (assuming I don't show it). If I ran an awesome Dungeon World, 4e, Dogs in the Vineyward, Shadows of Yesterday or anything Cortex + for Saelorn, the level of awesome that comes out of play and my own immense enjoyment wouldn't carry the day. The experience would flat out suck for him (her).

From what I can tell, you are probably correct in this assertion. I can't stomach anything like 2, because the concepts of PC protagonism and Story NOW (!) are directly anathema to the concept of role-playing in a traditional sense - to the player taking on the role of the character and engaging the world from that perspective.

The Crimson Binome · Jun 3, 2015

iserith said:
Perhaps there is some player out there that would sit at my table and have a terrible time, but I've yet to find that person. When the rubber hits the road - or the die hits the table, as it were - Forge waffle just doesn't matter if I can still deliver a good gaming experience and achieve the goals of play using whatever tools I have at my disposal.

I'm fairly certain that, were I to accidentally chance upon your table, I probably wouldn't make it past session zero. The idea of establishing the stakes for a challenge is entirely at odds with the nature of the play structure, as established in the PHB and the Basic Rules.

The DM describes the environment, the players explain what they want to do, and the DM narrates the results (after calling for a check, if the result is uncertain). That is how to play D&D 5E, and if you follow this play structure, then you will succeed in having fun and telling an interesting story.

The structure you advocate is taking things out of order. You are trying to tell an interesting story, but in doing so, you violate the process which is supposed to lead there. As such, any story you end up telling is corrupted. No matter your intent, this isn't the story which would have been generated by the process of play, and thus it is not the fun story that was supposed to have happened.

Which is fine, of course. You can go ahead and do whatever you want at your home table, as long as your players buy into it. But calling it D&D, or trying to tell any new player that this is how D&D is supposed to be played, is slandering the game.

iserith · Jun 3, 2015

Saelorn said:
I'm fairly certain that, were I to accidentally chance upon your table, I probably wouldn't make it past session zero. The idea of establishing the stakes for a challenge is entirely at odds with the nature of the play structure, as established in the PHB and the Basic Rules.

The rules do not prohibit discussing the stakes with the players before the roll. And since the DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions (and describes the environment), the outcomes of success and failure are entirely within his or her control.

Saelorn said:
The DM describes the environment, the players explain what they want to do, and the DM narrates the results (after calling for a check, if the result is uncertain). That is how to play D&D 5E, and if you follow this play structure, then you will succeed in having fun and telling an interesting story.

This is also how I play D&D. It's the very first part of this guide, in fact.

Saelorn said:
The structure you advocate is taking things out of order. You are trying to tell an interesting story, but in doing so, you violate the process which is supposed to lead there. As such, any story you end up telling is corrupted. No matter your intent, this isn't the story which would have been generated by the process of play, and thus it is not the fun story that was supposed to have happened.

This is incorrect. I follow the process of play, which I call the basic conversation of the game, very carefully. But I am also very aware of the goals of play stated in the Basic Rules, those being to have a good time as a group and to create an exciting, memorable story during play. Being the "lead storyteller" in a game "about storytelling in worlds of sword and sorcery," I make adjudications with these goals of play in mind. While "null results" (e.g. you fail to unlock the door, you don't know anything about yuan-ti) are sometimes appropriate as stated in the initial post in this guide, there are other tools available to the DM that can be applied if they are better suited to helping the group achieve the goals of play.

Saelorn said:
Which is fine, of course. You can go ahead and do whatever you want at your home table, as long as your players buy into it. But calling it D&D, or trying to tell any new player that this is how D&D is supposed to be played, is slandering the game.

This is unkind at best, trolling at worst, and I'm through discussing this with you as a result of your comments.

Bawylie · Jun 3, 2015

Saelorn said:
I'm fairly certain that, were I to accidentally chance upon your table, I probably wouldn't make it past session zero. The idea of establishing the stakes for a challenge is entirely at odds with the nature of the play structure, as established in the PHB and the Basic Rules.

The DM describes the environment, the players explain what they want to do, and the DM narrates the results (after calling for a check, if the result is uncertain). That is how to play D&D 5E, and if you follow this play structure, then you will succeed in having fun and telling an interesting story.

The structure you advocate is taking things out of order. You are trying to tell an interesting story, but in doing so, you violate the process which is supposed to lead there. As such, any story you end up telling is corrupted. No matter your intent, this isn't the story which would have been generated by the process of play, and thus it is not the fun story that was supposed to have happened.

Which is fine, of course. You can go ahead and do whatever you want at your home table, as long as your players buy into it. But calling it D&D, or trying to tell any new player that this is how D&D is supposed to be played, is slandering the game.

"Slandering the game?"

No - the process of the game exists to facilitate Play. Mechanics are employed to resolve ambiguities. How we employ those mechanics is dependent on our judgment as DMs, not prescribed by Agendas or Holy Writ.

It may be that there are, from time to time, mismatches in expectation. That's hardly attributable to Agenda; it's human fallibility. It happens, it has happened, it will happen. Even with perfect adherence to some overwrought and artificial philosophy of gaming.

In the end, DMs (GMs, whatever) exist because human brains have unlimited imagination and incredible processing power - if rules & process were all we needed, GMs wouldn't have a place. Writers would contrive a scenario and the process would handle everything.

Since that doesn't exist, and even the very best open-world exploration based games contain limitations in possibility (I've never seen Altair burn down a house to get his target, for instance) a human imagination, a GM, enables and facilitates the Play of the other players.

Because the possibilities are infinite, because human imagination is virtually unlimited, some examination of the possible adjudications that might arise, conventionally and unconventionally, is warranted and welcome. Guidelines and advice, not hard-coded process.

"Slandering the game..." I ask you...