D&D 5E (2014) Adjudicating Melee

[iserith]

Yeah I can see things like try to knock something from a foes hands or the like, blind them is a bit more tricky for me. The thing is I wouldn't blame a player for "abusing" blind if it is standard allowable action, any decent player IMO would be foolish not to take advantage of that mechanic. Play styles and all that. I hate the 3e/4e max your build game design but in combat I expect my players to be the most effective they can be.

I think there's also a tension between doing the most optimal thing and achieving the goals of play. Is it going to lead to a good time for everyone and help create an exciting, memorable story to frequently go for an enemy's eyesight? In my view, probably not. So a player in my opinion needs to temper the desire to do the most optimal thing with the knowledge that the only real way to win at D&D - at least as far as the Basic Rules say - is to achieve the goals of play. If "spamming" the most optimal thing isn't going to get one there, then another reasonable choice must be made.

This is not to say that blinding is the most optimal thing, of course. It's just a stand-in for any trick a player might be inclined to "abuse" in order to win at fights or whatever... while still ultimately failing to achieve the goals of play.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So a player in my opinion needs to temper the desire to do the most optimal thing with the knowledge that the only real way to win at D&D - at least as far as the Basic Rules say - is to achieve the goals of play. If "spamming" the most optimal thing isn't going to get one there, then another reasonable choice must be made.

Are your player characters - the Fighters, Wizards, and Rogues who have set out on this adventure - either incompetent at fighting or obviously suicidal? Does it create a better story for them to die horribly, without having completed their quest? Are they better characters, with a more-memorable story, if they take unnecessary risks and suffer grievous injury, where it could have easily been avoided?

You can't blame players for wanting to play competent characters, but you can blame the system for making it so that competent characters are boring.

 

[iserith]

Are your player characters - the Fighters, Wizards, and Rogues who have set out on this adventure - either incompetent at fighting or obviously suicidal? Does it create a better story for them to die horribly, without having completed their quest? Are they better characters, with a more-memorable story, if they take unnecessary risks and suffer grievous injury, where it could have easily been avoided?

You can't blame players for wanting to play competent characters, but you can blame the system for making it so that competent characters are boring.

Here it seems like you're making a big leap that not spamming the most effective thing possible to the point of boring everyone to tears means that the player characters are going to die horrible, screaming deaths. How about sometimes you make a less optimal, but still effective choice that is more entertaining instead?

And yes, sometimes it does create a better story for them to die horribly without completing their quest. Even the Basic Rules tells us this is so.

 

[Ristamar]

I think there's also a tension between doing the most optimal thing and achieving the goals of play. Is it going to lead to a good time for everyone and help create an exciting, memorable story to frequently go for an enemy's eyesight? In my view, probably not. So a player in my opinion needs to temper the desire to do the most optimal thing with the knowledge that the only real way to win at D&D - at least as far as the Basic Rules say - is to achieve the goals of play. If "spamming" the most optimal thing isn't going to get one there, then another reasonable choice must be made.

While I agree with the concept of the social contract between the DM and the players, I'm not sure if I extend it to the bulk of combat encounters. As a DM, I will always appreciate a player that adds color and flair to his tactics. However, I don't assume my players will bring the fun to the table, so to speak, while the elements I am controlling are actively trying to kill or neutralize them. If combat frequently devolves into a rote, boring string of predictable actions, that failure falls squarely on my shoulders.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And yes, sometimes it does create a better story for them to die horribly without completing their quest. Even the Basic Rules tells us this is so.

Sometimes it's a better story when you end up losing. In this situation, dying horribly and failing at the quest is a direct result of PC incompetence at taking unnecessary risks. In general, it makes for a bad story when your characters are suicidally incompetent.

Would you want to read a book about a group of characters who are literally too dumb to live? And then they die, not for any heroic reason, but because they felt like showing off with some fancy-yet-impractical maneuver when they could have just shot the monster?

 

[iserith]

While I agree with the concept of the social contract between the DM and the players, I'm not sure if I extend it to the bulk of combat encounters. As a DM, I will always appreciate a player that adds color and flare to his tactics. However, I don't assume my players will bring the fun to the table, so to speak, while the elements I am controlling are actively trying to kill or neutralize them. If combat frequently devolves into a rote, boring string of predictable actions, that failure falls squarely on my shoulders.

I think it's on the DM to choose the most entertaining option as well while still presenting a challenge. There's a tension here to balance this out for all participants in the game in my view. There's only one way to "win" at D&D and that's to have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story in the doing. That comes first in my view and everything else second.

 

[iserith]

Sometimes it's a better story when you end up losing. In this situation, dying horribly and failing at the quest is a direct result of PC incompetence at taking unnecessary risks. In general, it makes for a bad story when your characters are suicidally incompetent.

Would you want to read a book about a group of characters who are literally too dumb to live? And then they die, not for any heroic reason, but because they felt like showing off with some fancy-yet-impractical maneuver when they could have just shot the monster?

There is a lot of space between "too dumb to live" and "doesn't always choose the most optimal thing when doing so is not very entertaining."

Also, I take it you've never seen a Coen brothers movie? Things tend to turn out badly for everyone in those stories because of the poor choices they make, but it's still very entertaining.

It's like that old chestnut "Never Split the Party." Never say never, I say. Just last night the party split up and got slammed on all sides with demons. One character is currently down (making death saves) and they're finally regrouping after a mad dash through traps and vrocks. It looks like they might just turn things around (stopped mid-fight, so we'll see next week). The more optimal choice would have been to stick together and go room by room. They chose not to and it made for a highly entertaining session. The transcript will be up later, if you'd like to read it.

 

[Ristamar]

There's only one way to "win" at D&D and that's to have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story in the doing.

I think nearly everyone would agree with that general sentiment. It's the means to the end that can rankle players' sensibilities. Each group has their own quirks and levels of tolerance. Something that causes one group to pack up the dice and leave the table might not even raise a single eyebrow at a different table.

But even with the most cooperative and well adjusted players, there will always be a thing that has the potential to suck every ounce of enjoyment from a game. For some (myself included), it's fudging dice rolls. For others, it's the inconsistent or unpredictable adjudication of a favorite spell or combat maneuver. And once that verisimilitude has been cracked and the tension is shattered, "exciting and memorable" likely won't ever return until the problem is rectified.

Someone may have already mentioned it, but the heart of this thread's topics call back to The Id DM's article about the PAX 2014 game in which the question is raised, "Is the group playing Dungeons & Dragons?" Sure, a DM can stretch, bend, break, or twist as many rules as he feels necessary, but at some point, you have to ask if you're still playing the same game as everyone else. It's perfectly acceptable for the answer to be "no," but your players need to be aware of that before they sit down at the table.

 

[iserith]

Someone may have already mentioned it, but the heart of this thread's topics call back to The Id DM's article about the PAX 2014 game in which the question is raised, "Is the group playing Dungeons & Dragons?" Sure, a DM can stretch, bend, break, or twist as many rules as he feels necessary, but at some point, you have to ask if you're still playing the same game as everyone else. It's perfectly acceptable for the answer to be "no," but your players need to be aware of that before they sit down at the table.

My take on that is that the DM didn't "stretch, bend, break, or twist" rules. He brought rules into play when they were needed to resolve uncertainty. What he did fail to do, in my view, is share the spotlight equitably between the players which is at the heart of the objection as I see it. Initiative and action economy is good for that sort of thing, but not completely necessary.

 

[Ristamar]

My take on that is that the DM didn't "stretch, bend, break, or twist" rules. He brought rules into play when they were needed to resolve uncertainty. What he did fail to do, in my view, is share the spotlight equitably between the players which is at the heart of the objection as I see it. Initiative and action economy is good for that sort of thing, but not completely necessary.

In regard to the PAX game, I mostly agree. I just think it's a good a question to reflect upon any time there's an obvious divide between the expectations of a player and the DM.