D&D 5E Adjudicating Melee

[ExploderWizard]

That is a slippery slope, because each person may have a different threshold of fun at the expense of the rules. Just realize the consequences when someone starts to get annoyed.

EVERYONE at your game was fairly inclusive.

 

[Thyrwyn]

While nature of the setback could be arbitrary, I don't see that as a necessary outcome of the approach. At the very least, a DM is basing it on what makes sense in the context of the fictional situation.

And that is where I have a problem with this approach and this application. If it works at your table, go for it and have fun! I would not use it at my table and I would have reservations about joining a game D&D 5e game where that was the norm. Here's why:

• Concrete Rules - Someone mentioned upthread that D&D combat was the most abstract part of the rules - I disagree. The vast majority of the written rules relate to combat. It is by far the most mechanically detailed part of the rules set, whether we measure by page count or level of detail. It does not cover every possible situation and it is not nearly as detailed as some other systems, but compared to the rules for social interaction, they are very detailed (even if they aren't always as precise as we would like them to be).
• Player Agency - The entire rules set establishes a foundation or common language through which the players (of which the DM is one) can communicate and interact with the game. The rules give the players the tools to make informed decisions about the nature of their characters and the actions their characters will take within the game. This begins with character creation and continues though-out the entire play-span of the character. The more indiscriminately those rules are applied (by the DM), the less certain the other players become in their ability to coherently interact with the game. When the rules that are being differently applied are as concrete as the combat rules (for example), it only creates greater confusion and uncertainty in the other players. Confusion and uncertainty narrow the scope of player agency, create passivity, indecision, and frustration.
• There is no such thing as common sense - Everyone has a different idea of "what makes sense in the context of the fictional situation." When the DM starts spontaneously twisting the rules to suit their idea of what makes sense, the fiction becomes their fiction, and the other players become spectators. If all the game needs is "What makes sense to the DM in the fictional context", then we needn't bother rolling the dice in the first place. The game is no longer D&D - it is "How well do you understand your DM?"

In the case of the example, the fighter and orc lock weapons and fight each other off - the fighter gets damage on a miss, the orc gets an attack as a reaction which may or may not hit. Other things might make more or less sense, but that's good enough even if it mathematically it's a raw deal for the fighter.

No, it's not. If the outcome is even potentially worse for the fighter than the miss would have been, The DM has diminished the player's ability to make informed choices regarding his character's actions. When the fighter made the decision to attack, he thought he knew the risk/reward involved: the DM changed that on a whim. Now the fighter (and the other players) have to take that into consideration from that point forward. Is the Rogue going to risk that Sneak Attack on the Dragon, knowing the DM might reduce his attack to "weapon die only" in exchange for taking a free swing from the Dragon?

(Though there is some dispute as to this, it seems.)

Imagine that, people having opinions over something as straight forward as mathematics... Climate Change is also "disputed".

But the broader point is that the approach isn't necessarily arbitrary.

Necessarily? nope. Potentially? Absolutely.

 

[billd91]

maybe stop playing with an adversarial GM and have fun game?

3.X created a hell of a us vs. the gm mentality I glad that D&D 5e is attempting to move away from

I don't know where you get the idea any of that comes from 3e. People have been playing RPGs in an adversarial manner since they first appeared. Knights of the Dinner Table has been lampooning the excesses of that style since 1990 - long before 3e appeared.

 

[iserith]

And that is where I have a problem with this approach and this application. If it works at your table, go for it and have fun! I would not use it at my table and I would have reservations about joining a game D&D 5e game where that was the norm. Here's why:

• Concrete Rules - Someone mentioned upthread that D&D combat was the most abstract part of the rules - I disagree. The vast majority of the written rules relate to combat. It is by far the most mechanically detailed part of the rules set, whether we measure by page count or level of detail. It does not cover every possible situation and it is not nearly as detailed as some other systems, but compared to the rules for social interaction, they are very detailed (even if they aren't always as precise as we would like them to be).
• Player Agency - The entire rules set establishes a foundation or common language through which the players (of which the DM is one) can communicate and interact with the game. The rules give the players the tools to make informed decisions about the nature of their characters and the actions their characters will take within the game. This begins with character creation and continues though-out the entire play-span of the character. The more indiscriminately those rules are applied (by the DM), the less certain the other players become in their ability to coherently interact with the game. When the rules that are being differently applied are as concrete as the combat rules (for example), it only creates greater confusion and uncertainty in the other players. Confusion and uncertainty narrow the scope of player agency, create passivity, indecision, and frustration.
• There is no such thing as common sense - Everyone has a different idea of "what makes sense in the context of the fictional situation." When the DM starts spontaneously twisting the rules to suit their idea of what makes sense, the fiction becomes their fiction, and the other players become spectators. If all the game needs is "What makes sense to the DM in the fictional context", then we needn't bother rolling the dice in the first place. The game is no longer D&D - it is "How well do you understand your DM?"

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.

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?

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

Necessarily? nope. Potentially? Absolutely.

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.

 

[LostSoul]

And that is where I have a problem with this approach and this application. If it works at your table, go for it and have fun! I would not use it at my table and I would have reservations about joining a game D&D 5e game where that was the norm. Here's why:

• Concrete Rules - Someone mentioned upthread that D&D combat was the most abstract part of the rules - I disagree. The vast majority of the written rules relate to combat. It is by far the most mechanically detailed part of the rules set, whether we measure by page count or level of detail. It does not cover every possible situation and it is not nearly as detailed as some other systems, but compared to the rules for social interaction, they are very detailed (even if they aren't always as precise as we would like them to be).
• Player Agency - The entire rules set establishes a foundation or common language through which the players (of which the DM is one) can communicate and interact with the game. The rules give the players the tools to make informed decisions about the nature of their characters and the actions their characters will take within the game. This begins with character creation and continues though-out the entire play-span of the character. The more indiscriminately those rules are applied (by the DM), the less certain the other players become in their ability to coherently interact with the game. When the rules that are being differently applied are as concrete as the combat rules (for example), it only creates greater confusion and uncertainty in the other players. Confusion and uncertainty narrow the scope of player agency, create passivity, indecision, and frustration.
• There is no such thing as common sense - Everyone has a different idea of "what makes sense in the context of the fictional situation." When the DM starts spontaneously twisting the rules to suit their idea of what makes sense, the fiction becomes their fiction, and the other players become spectators. If all the game needs is "What makes sense to the DM in the fictional context", then we needn't bother rolling the dice in the first place. The game is no longer D&D - it is "How well do you understand your DM?"

Concrete Rules: I may have been the one saying that D&D combat is abstract. While I do agree that the rules on concrete, the abstraction happens in the "fiction": you can't be sure of what's happening in the game world until the dice are rolled and compared to AC and HP.

Player Agency: I'm with you here. I brought this up earlier.

There is no such thing as common sense: I don't think it's necessarily the case that DM rulings turn the game into "How well do you understand your DM?" That is a part of it, sure; I think that's a good thing, because it allows the DM's own individual creativity to come through. It's why you'd want to play with one DM instead of another. But if the DM is impartial and consistent when making rulings, that becomes a framework upon which you can make decisions. Biased or inconsistent rulings won't allow players to make informed decisions; impartial and consistent ones will, regardless if they're based on genre concerns or the DM's worldview. There may be a learning curve, but the DM is right there so you can ask questions - "If I use my greatsword's reach to keep him at bay and make a quick cut to the orc's face, can I avoid a counter or riposte?"

 

[The Crimson Binome]

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 an officially presented rules option, right there in the DMG, but the way it is presented is at odds with how the rest of the game is presented. Right or wrong, many players go into combat expecting that they know how it should work - a hit is a hit, and a miss is a miss, and everything is clearly well defined. Players base their decisions on the knowledge that they know how it should work.

That section in the DMG, which the players might not even know about, says everything that the players think they know might be wrong. As with any option that could radically change the nature of the game, it's probably best to consult with your players before implementing it, so you don't catch anyone off-guard.

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?

The rules for social action have never been terribly well defined. Players don't have any concrete expectations for what should happen, how often checks should be called for or what the difficulty of those checks should be (if any), or what the potential outcomes are. What does "success" or "failure" mean in context of asking the King for help again an evil necromancer? It's all so open-ended that the players expect DM arbitration on the matter.

A lot of that comes from the lack of specificity in the PHB. Since rules for combat are well-defined, players think they know them. Since rules for exploration and social interaction aren't so well-defined, players don't think they know them.

Edit: Also the stakes. Exploration and social interaction are relatively less-likely to kill you instantly (or put you into an un-recoverable situation from which death is nigh-guaranteed) on a single failed check.

 

[iserith]

As with any option that could radically change the nature of the game, it's probably best to consult with your players before implementing it, so you don't catch anyone off-guard.

I don't think it "radically changes the nature of the game." I just think it brings the combat side of the game more in line with the social interaction and exploration sides. To that end, it "normalizes" combat adjudication with the rest of the pillars. Again, we're okay with how social and exploration play out with regard to DM adjudication, just not when it comes to combat. This seems odd and inconsistent.

As for addressing it with the players, that goes without saying.

The rules for social action have never been terribly well defined. Players don't have any concrete expectations for what should happen, how often checks should be called for or what the difficulty of those checks should be (if any), or what the potential outcomes are. What does "success" or "failure" mean in context of asking the King for help again an evil necromancer? It's all so open-ended that the players expect DM arbitration on the matter.

A lot of that comes from the lack of specificity in the PHB. Since rules for combat are well-defined, players think they know them. Since rules for exploration and social interaction aren't so well-defined, players don't think they know them.

This sounds like simply because there are more rules for combat, there is less tolerance of the DM applying the rules as liberally as he or she might in a social interaction situation (even though it's completely on the DM in the first place to apply rules or not during play). I don't think I can buy this explanation. It seems like there is more to the objection than the amount of rules in the book.

That brings me back to stakes. You seem to imply that failure in a combat has a concrete result - death, I'm guessing - whereas the outcome of a social interaction does not. What if a scene involving combat didn't have death on the table as part of the stakes? What if failure meant capture or failing to achieve some other important objective? Would you then be more okay with the DM applying something like "Success as at Cost?"

Edit: What if a social interaction scene did have stakes wherein failure resulted in death? Fail to negotiate with the Evil Duke and you die. What are your thoughts on that?

 

[SilentBoba]

I could see hitting exactly the AC needed could result in the weapon doing only base weapon damage, if that's how a group wants to house rule. But regardless, winging it like this when you move beyond a colorful way of saying "you barely missed" into "you kind of hit, but..." with no structure to the results is going to devolve the game session into arguments very quickly.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't think it "radically changes the nature of the game." I just think it brings the combat side of the game more in line with the social interaction and exploration sides. To that end, it "normalizes" combat adjudication with the rest of the pillars. Again, we're okay with how social and exploration play out with regard to DM adjudication, just not when it comes to combat. This seems odd and inconsistent.

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.)

This sounds like simply because there are more rules for combat, there is less tolerance of the DM applying the rules as liberally as he or she might in a social interaction situation (even though it's completely on the DM in the first place to apply rules or not during play). I don't think I can buy this explanation. It seems like there is more to the objection than the amount of rules in the book.

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.

That brings me back to stakes. You seem to imply that failure in a combat has a concrete result - death, I'm guessing - whereas the outcome of a social interaction does not. What if a scene involving combat didn't have death on the table as part of the stakes? What if failure meant capture or failing to achieve some other important objective? Would you then be more okay with the DM applying something like "Success as at Cost?"

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.

 

[MarkB]

Yeah, I agree that consistency and transparency is important. But nobody here in this thread is talking about "Rule 0'ing everything in sight" even a little bit. There is talk of applying a particular resolution method from the DMG, however.

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.