D&D 5E Adjudicating Melee

[Thyrwyn]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] - very early in my post I did say that I have no problem if you want to play that way - go for it and have fun!. I meant it sincerely. You asked what we thought - I am explaining why I would not run my table that way and why I would have reservations about joining a game that did.

I object to the assertion that this is a matter of "whim" or the DM "twisting the rules." It may not be based on whim at all. And the rules for "Success at a Cost" are right there in the DMG.

It is not a rule. It is a suggestion - or if you prefer "Option." Just because it is written, does not make it a "rule."

Given all that we have about this situation, we have no means to determine the "reason" for the DM choosing to rule this way. The reason you suggested was that, the DM thought it "[made] sense in the context of the fictional situation." How is that not a whim? There is nothing in the description of this particular circumstance that would lead an objective observer (or even the other players) to deem this situation different than any other involving a fighter attacking with his greatsword? The only thing that makes it different is that the DM said so - after seeing the die roll.

Why do you think it is generally seen as more acceptable to have the DM rule whatever he or she wants as an outcome of social interaction or exploration, but in a combat not so much? Is it the stakes?

I, and others, have already answered this. My at length response would require a thread of its own. Short Answer: I do not fit comfortably in the "generally" category.

Would you object if the DM offered the trade as a choice? (You may have answered this upthread, I don't recall.)

Maybe - it depends on the bigger picture, but in general no.
(And it has nothing to do with "adversarial DMs". I choose not to be one, nor do I play with them.)
I like 5e because, in the moment, both as a DM and as a player, I do not have to crunch the numbers. I can just play. This choice takes me out of that moment.

I can't be given to care about "potentially." No rule is going to stop someone who really wants to be arbitrary. That's a person problem, not a rules problem.

To me: this ruling in this situation seems arbitrary.

You said earlier that this was not your ruling, that you just wanted people's opinions. In order to answer your question, those people need to consider "potentially". The people you choose to play with, will also care about "potentially".

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Hate damage on a miss and don't think it meshes well with the abstract nature of HP, other than the bonus attacks and reduced damage I'd narrate a sucessful hit roll like that assuming the Orc has enough base HP to make a regular hit not lethal. Every time a player missed by 2 does the same mechanical effect happen, ie straight dice damage and counter attack? Or does the DM kind of rule this stuff on the fly? Not my bag but as long as they game is fun at your table who cares what chuckleheads like me think.

 

[iserith]

I would rather it go the other way around. This being D&D, with all that entails, I have expectations that it should go the other way around whenever possible.

We have solid rules for combat because we can model them easily enough, but we're forced to accept vague and arbitrary rules for the other pillars because they are much more complex. If we could easily model all exploration, and put it into a series of predictable checks, then that would be ideal. But we can't, because situations are too variable.

Likewise with social interaction, where people are more complicated than can be summed up with a codified set of rules. (Some of the issue might be that players are more familiar with real-life social interaction than with real-life combat, so we're less ready to accept social rules that are codified poorly than combat rules which don't match up to reality.)

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?

That's precisely what I'm saying. People expect rules to be followed, wherever they're presented. It's why optional rules are explicitly tagged as optional, even where you could treat any rule as optional. It's about managing expectations. If the rules are that the DM makes something up, then that's what we expect. It doesn't matter whether or not you buy into that. The truth doesn't require your belief.

And then there's this rule, which says that all other well-defined rules are just guidelines, and the DM can just do whatever. It's not even presented in the main rulebook, but is somewhere in the middle of a book that most players will never read. If you choose to invoke this rule, then you're throwing out everything that the players thought they knew about the game. That's not something you can do casually, or without repercussion.

Outside of a player potentially never reading it, I don't see why the position of a rule in the book should matter as to its relevance. As was previously agreed, discussing it before play and setting expectations goes without saying (although, here I am saying it again).

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. They come into play when we need them to resolve uncertainty and there is only one person at the table that can invoke a mechanic at all - the DM. If the DM decides the player is not going to make an attack roll because the DM knows the character is going to automatically hit or miss given the circumstances, then that's what happens. The player describes what he or she wants to do; the DM narrates the result of the adventurer's action. Sometimes that involves dice and rules at the DM's discretion. With that in mind, I struggle to see a problem with "Success at a Cost." It's no more or less reliant upon the DM's call than anything else.

Stakes are only part of it. Even if it was just a friendly tournament, and the only prize was pride, then I would still expect the combat rules to be followed to the letter. If the DM starts messing with the codified results, invoking "Success at a Cost", then I would not appreciate that. That it's just a friendly tournament, rather than a battle to the death, might be the difference between talking about this with the DM after the game, or just not coming back to this game.

The "Success at a Cost" rule is entirely at odds with everything I know and like about Dungeons & Dragons.

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?

 

[iserith]

The problem here is that the DM is using a minor optional ruling from the depths of the DMG, whilst the players are using a consistent and reasonably set-in-stone set of combat rules from the PHB, and likely don't even know about the rule in the DMG. Unless it's discussed beforehand, this can lead to massively different expectations between the players and the DM.

In the end, if the players don't know about the rule, it appears just as arbitrary and disruptive to them whether it exists in the DMG or not.

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.

 

[Kikuras]

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.

From the reading it is clear (to me) that the Success at a Cost rule is something that might pop up very rarely as a function creating a little extra depth to the overall narrative of the game. What it is not supposed to be is a rule applied to every roll throughout the game, and it would be annoying as hell if it was. Aside from that, no one is actually objecting. Everyone has said that it's fine. Why do you keep asking for more when the horse was dead and beaten 5 pages ago?

 

[iserith]

[MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] - very early in my post I did say that I have no problem if you want to play that way - go for it and have fun!. I meant it sincerely. You asked what we thought - I am explaining why I would not run my table that way and why I would have reservations about joining a game that did.

Please don't take my discussion or questioning of your positions as an argument against what you're saying. I have no skin in the game. I'm seeking to understand the source of the objection. I think that the objections thus far presented, while as valid as any other objection, seem inconsistent with what we know of the rest of the game.

It is not a rule. It is a suggestion - or if you prefer "Option." Just because it is written, does not make it a "rule."

Oh, c'mon. It's a rule as much as any other rule is a rule in that the DM is in full control of if and when they are brought into play. Let's not debate semantics and whether a statement's position in a given rule book makes it a rule or not.

Given all that we have about this situation, we have no means to determine the "reason" for the DM choosing to rule this way. The reason you suggested was that, the DM thought it "[made] sense in the context of the fictional situation." How is that not a whim? There is nothing in the description of this particular circumstance that would lead an objective observer (or even the other players) to deem this situation different than any other involving a fighter attacking with his greatsword? The only thing that makes it different is that the DM said so - after seeing the die roll.

I think there are assumptions inherent in your take that are symptoms of the underlying objection. In other words, isn't it possible you're reading into it because you already object to the method on some other basis that is yet unexplored in this discussion?

"Whim," typically refers to a sudden desire or change of mind, especially one that is unusual or unexplained. There is nothing in the example to suggest that is the case - unless you're assuming that this adjudication is a radical departure from anything the DM has done before and/or that the players were not informed that the DM would be using the "Success at a Cost" approach. Which again, are just assumptions that are not based in any part of the example under discussion.

I, and others, have already answered this. My at length response would require a thread of its own. Short Answer: I do not fit comfortably in the "generally" category.

Could you link me back to where you addressed this specifically? I might have missed it or misread it. Would you prefer, like Saelorn, that the exploration and social interaction pillars of the game have more rules? Would you prefer a DM be mandated to follow the rules by the rules of the game rather than what we have now? (Take Dungeon World for example which has specific rules and procedures for the DM to follow rather than a collection of tools he or she can pick up or put down in pursuit of the goals of play.)

To me: this ruling in this situation seems arbitrary.

Which I would say is a feeling based on an assumption of things that are not a given in the example.

 

[iserith]

From the reading it is clear (to me) that the Success at a Cost rule is something that might pop up very rarely as a function creating a little extra depth to the overall narrative of the game. What it is not supposed to be is a rule applied to every roll throughout the game, and it would be annoying as hell if it was. Aside from that, no one is actually objecting. Everyone has said that it's fine. Why do you keep asking for more when the horse was dead and beaten 5 pages ago?

Most or all have said the common refrain of "Hey, if that's what you want to do at your table, go for it!" Most have also said they have problems with it (an objection). I'm seeking to find the heart of the objection given that "Success at a Cost" is no more or less dependent on the DM than the invocation of any other mechanic in the game which is firmly in the DM's purview. What's more, why are most of us okay with its use in 2/3 of the pillars of the game, but when it comes to the combat pillar, objections arise? What's different here?

 

[Kikuras]

Most or all have said the common refrain of "Hey, if that's what you want to do at your table, go for it!" Most have also said they have problems with it (an objection). I'm seeking to find the heart of the objection given that "Success at a Cost" is no more or less dependent on the DM than the invocation of any other mechanic in the game which is firmly in the DM's purview. What's more, why are most of us okay with its use in 2/3 of the pillars of the game, but when it comes to the combat pillar, objections arise? What's different here?

Having read all of the posts in this thread, all I can say is, "Asked and answered". If you are unwilling, or unable to parse it all together into an answer that you feel is satisfactory, that's sort of a you-issue, everyone else seems to be rather satisfied with their answers.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

When I roll equal or better than AC I know the precise effects, if I roll a 20 I know what additional effects. I roll dice damage and add bonuses. If I miss by 2 and its damage on a miss is it always the same effect or does the DM rule of the fly what effect he thinks is best? Is there a list of possible effects? Is it different if i miss by 1 rather than 2?

I definitely handle social situations different than combat since there are a million ways things can go when people are just talking and the players role playing is the prime determinant on how I have the NPC respond in most cases. Combat we want much more rigidly defined and it easier to do so since there are options. You hit or miss. Roll damage, roll max and you "connected" better than if you roll a 1.

 

[Rune]

Would you prefer a DM be mandated to follow the rules by the rules of the game rather than what we have now? (Take Dungeon World for example which has specific rules and procedures for the DM to follow rather than a collection of tools he or she can pick up or put down in pursuit of the goals of play.)

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 by player or GM) and, because those specific moves provide the players agency in determining the outcome (through specifically detailed mechanical choices) without actually mapping those 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. That set could be determined on the fly and be entirely situational, but it needs to be there.