D&D 5E (2014) Adjudicating Melee

[iserith]

Actually, I think the set of specific rules in Dungeon World are a large part of what enables the GM a lot of the narrative freedom that the system is built around. Because those specific rules are triggered by the narrative (rather than the other way around), the GM has a lot of leeway to determine which move is being triggered (whether player or GM) and, because those specific moves provide the players agency in determining the outcome (through specifically detailed mechanical choices) without actually mapping throes choices back to the narrative, the players have a framework in which they maintain agency while the GM still determines what the narrative outcome looks like.

The "Success at a Cost" optional rule in 5e can't duplicate this without a set of codefied mechanical outcomes that the player can choose from.

I think in D&D, the rules are also triggered by the narrative (at the DM's option). A player cannot opt to invoke a rule after all - he or she can only describe an action that the character tries to undertake in the fiction. The DM then decides if the action succeeds, fails, or has uncertainty that needs resolving with mechanics and dice.

I think that this discussion has led me to a question to which there might not be any easy answers: Knowing that the DM is in full control over how and when the rules are invoked and the narration of the outcome of an adventurer's action, why then do we pretend that "Success at a Cost" is somehow different from the paradigm under which we're already playing the game?

More food for thought. Thanks for the discussion, all.

 

[MarkB]

Let's assume the DM has already addressed that with the players as a given.

On the one hand, we know that the DM can choose to invoke a mechanic at any given time when he or she decides that there is uncertainty in the outcome of an adventurer's action. If the DM decides you auto-hit or auto-miss, you do. If the DM decides your attempt to pick the lock automatically works or automatically fails, it does. If the DM decides your attempt to pick the lock results in you picking the lock, but setting off an alarm, it does. The DM decides if there is uncertainty, what rules to use to resolve it, and what the resolution looks like.

Why then do we see the objection to "Success at a Cost" as if the DM doesn't already control when rules are invoked, when dice are rolled, and what is narrated in the aftermath?

I feel like we're just not getting to the real heart of the objection in this discussion. I would like to know what it is.

To me, it's the intent of the "Success at a cost" option, which is encapsulated in the very first line of its description. Success at a cost is intended as an olive branch, a means by which the DM can mitigate the agony of that one bad die roll at the most crucial of moments by allowing the player to pull some degree of success out of that failure.

Your example contains none of these elements. It isn't a crucial encounter, there is nothing particularly agonising about failing to hit a random orc in the first round of combat, the DM is not 'allowing' anything but instead mandating it, and far from turning failure into success this ruling may in practice turn a minor setback into a disaster for the character in question.

Thus, you have implemented some form of the mechanics of the rule, but you've gone almost diametrically against the spirit of that rule.

 

[iserith]

To me, it's the intent of the "Success at a cost" option, which is encapsulated in the very first line of its description. Success at a cost is intended as an olive branch, a means by which the DM can mitigate the agony of that one bad die roll at the most crucial of moments by allowing the player to pull some degree of success out of that failure.

Your example contains none of these elements. It isn't a crucial encounter, there is nothing particularly agonising about failing to hit a random orc in the first round of combat, the DM is not 'allowing' anything but instead mandating it, and far from turning failure into success this ruling may in practice turn a minor setback into a disaster for the character in question.

Your assumption is that it isn't a crucial encounter. Maybe it is. Maybe it's not just a random orc (after all, he does have pie). The example doesn't establish those facts one way or another. There is nothing about "Success at a Cost" that says the DM must offer the player a choice either (though that seems to be good practice).

Thus, you have implemented some form of the mechanics of the rule, but you've gone almost diametrically against the spirit of that rule.

As I said upthread to Saelorn, arguably it should be more of a setback that changes the situation than what the example has established. But leaving aside the specific example, the objection to the "Success at a Cost" stands on its own. So I am forced to ponder the question I proffered here.

 

[Rune]

I think in D&D, the rules are also triggered by the narrative (at the DM's option). A player cannot opt to invoke a rule after all - he or she can only describe an action that the character tries to undertake in the fiction. The DM then decides if the action succeeds, fails, or has uncertainty that needs resolving with mechanics and dice.

I think that the combat rules (and related character abilities) as presented expect otherwise--the mechanics come first. The initial decision to perform a specific action is expressed in mechanical terms using a mechanical framework (the turn structure and action economy) and resolved through a mechanical process that, because it is binary, provides predictable results which then can be mapped to the narrative.

You are correct in recognizing that the rest of the game does not play this way (although 4e tried to make it do so with skill challenges). However, changing combat to match would require such a paradigm shift that buy-in must be achieved beforehand, simply because combat-as-presented carries with it fundamental assumptions about player agency.

I think that this discussion has led me to a question to which there might not be any easy answers: Knowing that the DM is in full control over how and when the rules are invoked and the narration of the outcome of an adventurer's action, why then do we pretend that "Success at a Cost" is somehow different from the paradigm under which we're already playing the game?

That's just the thing. Combat-as-presented is (and has been in the entire history of the game) a different game with a different set of expectations. Even though DM guidelines have always stressed (or at least mentioned) that the rules are not intended to bind the DM to them, the combat rules (and related character abilities) have never been presented this way. They are presented in black and white as universal laws (as in, "this is how the universe works") which implies an inherent degree of player agency.

"Success at a Cost" does not undermine this inherently; all it does is change a binary result to a trinary one. However, stripping predictability out of the equation (by playing the same game as the rest of the pillars) does undermine that expectation that combat-as-presented creates. Hence, the necessity for buy-in.

 

[GMMichael]

1. The DM describes the environment.
2. The players describe what they want to do.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.

With that in mind, consider the following interaction.

DM: The orc raises up his greataxe to defend himself, a scowl on his porcine face. Make an attack roll.
Fighter: *rolls* 11.
DM (orc has AC 13): Your sword clashes with the orc's greataxe with a terrible clamor. The force of the blow nearly brings the orc to his knees. Roll just your weapon damage dice - then the orc is going to get a counterattack as a reaction before taking his turn.

What do you think of this DM's ruling? Do the rules support such a ruling? How would you take it if you were playing the fighter? Would you prefer to be given a choice of missing outright or doing damage but opening yourself up to a reaction attack? What if the fighter missed by more than two?

The DM's ruling is precarious. The rules are clear about when someone deals damage. So, the DM is obviously breaking the rules here, which exposes him to the player's concern: "I can't expect this DM to follow the rules at all times. Am I okay with that, or is it going to start making me uncomfortable?"

Or worse: "This GM bends the rules in ways that I can't predict. Will I be comfortable in an unpredictable game?"

As the fighter-player, I'd be wondering if I want to keep fighting an orc who makes rapid counterattacks as I'm knocking him to the ground. And if lots of opponents start using this trick, I'd wonder why I hadn't figured it out yet.

What would I prefer? A Fate-style compel: "you can deal weapon damage if the orc gets an attack reaction." Followed by, "erm, no thanks."

Now, you could easily perform the example situation like this:

DM: The orc raises up his greataxe to defend himself, a scowl on his porcine face. Make an attack roll.
Fighter: *rolls* 11.
DM (orc has AC 13): Your sword clashes with the orc's greataxe with a terrible clamor. The force of the blow nearly brings the orc to his knees. The orc takes a wild swing at you as he stands back up.

No damage, no foul.

 

[MarkB]

Your assumption is that it isn't a crucial encounter. Maybe it is. Maybe it's not just a random orc (after all, he does have pie). The example doesn't establish those facts one way or another.

But it is presented in a fashion strongly predisposed to being just an ordinary encounter with a nameless orc. Present it as the climactic battle in which the PCs' orcish nemesis will activate his world-ending device if he isn't stopped within the next round, and you might receive a different reaction.

The point is that context matters when applying a rule like Success At A Cost. It isn't something that is universally good or bad regardless of the circumstances in which it is used.

 

[iserith]

I think that the combat rules (and related character abilities) as presented expect otherwise--the mechanics come first. The initial decision to perform a specific action is expressed in mechanical terms using a mechanical framework (the turn structure and action economy) and resolved through a mechanical process that, because it is binary, provides predictable results which then can be mapped to the narrative.

You are correct in recognizing that the rest of the game does not play this way (although 4e tried to make it do so with skill challenges). However, changing combat to match would require such a paradigm shift that buy-in must be achieved beforehand, simply because combat-as-presented carries with it fundamental assumptions about player agency.

I'm forced to disagree unless I'm misunderstanding your position. Narrative still comes first in combat even though what we can do fictionally is constrained by action economy and turn order e.g. "I attack the orc with my greatsword." (Arguably, turn order and action economy is really about ensuring equal spotlight time and opportunity to contribute.) From there the DM judges whether an attack roll is necessary (it usually is because of opposition that is defending itself but we can imagine cases where there is no uncertainty as to hitting) and, if successful, what effect follows (usually a damage roll, again, if it's uncertain and applicable) as well as the narration of the result.

Replace the fictional declaration with "I try to appeal to the King's well-known mercy to spare our lives," change AC to DC, keep the life-or-death stakes, and now we're in a whole different game with different expectations? This seems odd to me. Perhaps our expectations are not in line with what the game actually is. Rather we're taking our expectations from other games and trying to apply them to D&D 5e.

That's just the thing. Combat-as-presented is (and has been in the entire history of the game) a different game with a different set of expectations. Even though DM guidelines have always stressed (or at least mentioned) that the rules are not intended to bind the DM to them, the combat rules (and related character abilities) have never been presented this way. They are presented in black and white as universal laws (as in, "this is how the universe works") which implies an inherent degree of player agency.

"Success at a Cost" does not undermine this inherently; all it does is change a binary result to a trinary one. However, stripping predictability out of the equation does undermine that expectation that combat-as-presented creates.

I'm not sure I can see combat rules as "universal laws." I know that some people with particular play agendas really want it to be that way though and might even try to make the rules apply in that fashion to varying degrees of success. I think the combat rules can be taken exactly as any other rule - a tool that serves the DM and allows him or her to resolve uncertainty.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

What do you think of this DM's ruling? Do the rules support such a ruling? How would you take it if you were playing the fighter? Would you prefer to be given a choice of missing outright or doing damage but opening yourself up to a reaction attack? What if the fighter missed by more than two?

Feel free to make whatever other assumptions you want about the situation, just make a note of what assumptions you're making to avoid someone hitting you with a "Well, actually..." (Ugh.

I only read the OP, so this is just in response to the original questions.

I would want to know before I decided on joining the game that the DM would be using the rules so loosely. If he were, honestly, I would ask him to consider using a different game system more fitting to that style of play for this story/campaign/experiment. If not, I would probably politely decline to participate. I would feel that that style of ruling just clashes with too many of the assumptions of how D&D plays, how you choose your character's features, etc, to put me on a playing field where I knew what was going on. D&D is a common language, and if we aren't all speaking it there isn't any reason to make it the baseline assumption of the mechanics.

 

[Rune]

I'm forced to disagree unless I'm misunderstanding your position. Narrative still comes first in combat even though what we can do fictionally is constrained by action economy and turn order e.g. "I attack the orc with my greatsword."

I would argue that that sentence is more mechanical than narrative. It employs jargon that means something specific in the rules and the mechanics that it calls for are likewise specific. It is also narrative in a minimalist sense, but only in the way that it provides a summary of the narrative which can only be fleshed out after the dice have their say.

From there the DM judges whether an attack roll is necessary (it usually is because of opposition that is defending itself but we can imagine cases where there is no uncertainty as to hitting) and, if successful, what effect follows (usually a damage roll, again, if it's uncertain and applicable) as well as the narration of the result.

Neither of these things are true of combat-as-presented. The mechanics are presented as the way combat works unless the DM chooses to override them. The DM has permission to do so, but the expectation is that the presented framework will be adhered to as a default. This distinction is important in the context of this discussion, because it gets at the heart of your question.

It seems to me that you are viewing the presented combat rules as a subset that falls under an overarching Rule 0 that says that all rules are subject to change based on DM fiat. And you're not wrong.

But, the way those combat rules are (and have always been) presented creates the expectation that the combat rules (and related character abilities) sort of stand as an isolated set of rules, only kind of under that Rule 0. This is probably because the language stresses that those rules describe how these things are resolved, without stressing (or even mentioning) that they might not. Possibly, it is also because what the characters can do within combat has always been disproportionately represented in the rules. There is a natural tendency to want "what my character can do" to match "what my character does do."

Replace the fictional declaration with "I try to appeal to the King's well-known mercy to spare our lives," change AC to DC, keep the life-or-death stakes, and now we're in a whole different game with different expectations? This seems odd to me. Perhaps our expectations are not in line with what the game actually is. Rather we're taking our expectations from other games and trying to apply them to D&D 5e.

Probably (although 5e is designed for that), but I think it likely a group of new players completely new to all RPGs would arrive at these expectations. Perhaps even more likely than seasoned players.

I'm not sure I can see combat rules as "universal laws." I know that some people with particular play agendas really want it to be that way though and might even try to make the rules apply in that fashion to varying degrees of success. I think the combat rules can be taken exactly as any other rule - a tool that serves the DM and allows him or her to resolve uncertainty.

That's how they're presented. They don't say "check with your DM to see what mechanic to use with x action and what y result will be." They say "action x uses this mechanic and produces result y."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It seems that wherever possible, you'd prefer to take the DM's decision-making out of the decision. If you could add more rules to make the outcome of a social interaction less reliant on the DM's judgment, you would. Is that a correct assessment?

Yes. The DM is necessary because no ruleset is perfect, and sometimes you need a real person there to govern unforeseen circumstance. The players can do anything, and no finite amount of rules can take that into account. That's why you have an arbiter to determine such things honestly and fairly.

Of course, the DM is also the one to play all of the NPCs and narrate any sort of plot elements, but he or she would still be able to do that, even with a perfect ruleset that didn't require the DM to also act as arbiter.

But here's another issue: I don't think the rules in D&D are meant to be followed. The rules are meant to serve us, not for us to follow them.

The way in which rules serve us is by guaranteeing that everyone understands how things work, without having to stop so one person can explain it at every step along the way. When you ignore the rule, or when the DM changes a rule on-the-fly, you defeat the purpose of having rules in the first place.

Let's flip it around as per my edit above: What if this was a social interaction with life and death on the line? How would you feel about such a situation knowing that there aren't as many rules to govern it?

I don't consider the stakes to be that important to the situation at hand. You can certainly RP your way into a bad situation, but that's in line with expectations; if you lie to the king, and fail on the Deception check, then that's your own fault.

The situation with this rule is that you make a check, and the player expects one of two outcomes, but the DM says something unexpected happens due to a marginal success. I don't know that it's something that could really happen with a social interaction, though, because success on a social interaction is nebulously defined. There aren't exactly two outcomes that the player could expect.