My opinion of Matt Mercer's DMing skills really has nothing to do with my own approach or its merits. My approach isn't informed by anything Matt Mercer does or doesn't do. It's informed by a desire for clear communication, smooth execution, good pacing, and collaboration within clearly defined roles.And I think that by itself tells the folks out there a lot about the merits of your style.
Ah okay, so plausible here is being used to mean likely to succeed or similar. Is that about right?The DM who has in mind all of the factors in an encounter, decides whether the PCs action sounds "plausible" in the context, so that the action automatically succeeds, automatically fails, or else the DM asks for a d20 roll if it might go either way.
Sorry, far too binary for my liking.Which it can’t do if opening it is within your ability and no external factor prevents you from doing so.
Yes, I'm a bit unhappy with how they describe it.For the last couple of editions D&D has generally gone with Intelligence is knowledge while Wisdom is noticing relevant things.
3e split noticing things into three skills with Wisdom for spotting and listening to things while Intelligence was specifically actively searching, but with consolidation of the skill list in 4e and Pathfinder perception was a single skill and it fell into Wisdom.
5e added intelligence investigation which explicitly says it can be used for finding hidden things, but as I mentioned the lines for that versus other skills can be very blurry with specific call outs to use perception for things like finding traps.
I’ve been pretty clear about my feelings on the single-binding-roll model in the past. My point here is, if you’re using that model, then failure always has a consequence.Sorry, far too binary for my liking.
Even if something is within your ability today, it might not be tomorrow and might be again the next day.
People (and thus, characters which are imaginary people) aren't robots, and don't always perform to the same standard every time out. Look at any athletics or sport of any kind for an example of what I mean: you might run a given race in 25.1 seconds today, 26.3 seconds tomorrow, and 25.4 the day after; meaning if the "DC" of that race (say, a qualifying standard) is 25.5 you're gonna miss it one day out of three even though your personal best over that distance is 24.4 seconds.
This is the basis for the single-binding-roll model - it represents the best you're gonna do in this particular situation, and also means you can fail even if theoretically you (on a good day) have the ability to succeed.
If the table consensus determines the plausibility / likelihood of success in a specific narrative scenario, that is great. I prefer when D&D is a collaborative process.Ah okay, so plausible here is being used to mean likely to succeed or similar. Is that about right?
I have a somewhat different process whereby, if the player's declaration is deemed by table consensus to be permissible, meaning the action is supported by established fiction and doesn't defy genre expectations, then it either succeeds or is resolved with a check.
I'm aware of what's in the DMG.That's covered in the DMG. You don't ask for a check for ordering a drink or to walk across the floor. Of course you don't normally ask for a check for mundane tasks. Unless it's my Halloween episode in which case I'm using a wide variety of things to make my players paranoid.