So, earlier I had a post on skilled play ("SP"), which was a predominant modality of play in early D&D. I was hoping to explore how some of the elements of SP continue to be relevant to discussions that we have about 5e. Unfortunately, it didn't work out so well! At least, not in terms of the original topic. That said, it did get me to focus on what I was thinking of more specifically in terms of 5e, and rulings not rules, and DM heuristics.
Oh, one more thing- I use the terms 'heuristics' and 'DM heuristics' repeatedly. It's just a quick and fancy way of discusisng the internal 'rules of thumb' or 'shortcuts' that the DM is using. One easy example of a DM heuristic is the 'rule of cool' - some DMs will use a rule of cool heuristic and be more lenient if a player is trying to do something 'cool' (awesome, cinematic, fun).
1. The Original Problem, in three parts.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, and that's more than enough for a decent living.
D&D traditionally has a divide between subjects that the rules heavily prescribe, such as combat, and subjects that the rules do not heavily prescribe, such as the way that the plumbing system works in the world. Some rulesets are more light on prescription (OD&D, B/X) and some are more heavy on prescription (3e), but all D&D rulesets have that duality to some extent (between rulings and rules, between topics that are more rule-intensive such as combat, and topics that are not). This is partly due to the nature of TTRPGs in general - they are not circumscribed like a boardgame, and rely on a person (or persons, for some games) to describe the overall world. Since the world and the actions are not circumscribed, no ruleset can adequately capture everything that can be done. And this is partly due to the evolution of D&D in particular, and the need to rely on legacy aspects of the game.
With that in mind, there are three foundational issues that come up in D&D rulings. I'm not going to go into them in depth, as they aren't really the main focus of the post.
A. What is red, exactly?
To crib a little Gusdorf, language is imperfect. When I hear the word 'red' and when you hear the word 'red,' we both have similar images of colors- enough that we can communicate. Yet, the exact shade of 'red' that is in my mind will undoubtedly be different that what you picture. This is one way to describe the general loop in D&D-
a. DM pictures the scenario.
b. DM describes the scenario.
c. Player hears the scenario.
d. Player pictures the scenario.
e. Player describes player's action.
f. DM hears the player's description of player's action.
g. DM pictures how player's description of player's action will impact the scenario.
h. DM determines what to do- roll, ruling, rule, something else.
i. DM resolves the player's action.
Within that loop, there are numerous chances for a miscommunication, starting with the DM not describing the scenario (scene, encounter, room, etc.) that the DM has pictured in such a manner that the player will picture it in the same way. The vast majority of the time, this loop is simplified (combat, for example), or there are no issues. Nevertheless, imperfect communication, the inability to use language to convey what we mean with precision to each other, is always lurking in the background to these conversations.
B. A Ruling, or a Rule?
What is not a rule, we must pass over in silence. I'm not sure that Wittgenstein was thinking about D&D, but the phrase works well enough. The second issue that occurs in D&D is whether the issue is a ruling, or a rule. If it's a rule, there is a mechanical method of adjudication (the AC is X, so you must roll Y to hit). If there is no rule, or if the application of a rule is unclear, then the DM must determine what happens in the fictional world (The druid dons the metal armor ...). The boundaries of rulings and rules can be imprecise (is not wearing metal armor a rule? is setting a certain unspecified DC a ruling?), and issues often pop up in the liminal space between them.
C. Common sense is not so common.
Finally, we get to the third issue, one of the primary issues with "skilled play," and the one that gives rise to DM heuristics. Briefly put, when DMs are using their own common sense to make rulings, we often learn that so-called common sense isn't so common. On this, we can use the bat example:
A player says that he is casting silence on a swarm of bats that is attacking the party. How does the DM rule?
First, the DM might just look at the rules, not see anything in the 'natural language' of 5e with regard to bats and that spell, and say that nothing happens. But let's assume that this is a fictional world ruling, not just a keyword rule. Well-
DM A may not know anything about bats, and rule that nothing happens.
DM B may know that bats use echolocation to see, and rule that the silence has a devastating effect on the bats that is at least equivalent to blindness.
DM C may know a LOT about bats, and realizes that they aren't blind and the silence wouldn't effect the bats.
DM D also knows a LOT about bats, and thinks that while they wouldn't be blinded, the loss of their echolocation would be disorienting.
All four DMs are using their common sense of how the world works to adjudicate an action by the player, with disparate results. This type of issue (sometimes referred to, incorrectly, as "mother may I") will crop up in games whenever you move past the specified ruleset, and is why most DMs gravitate toward consistent heuristics for adjudications.
Before going into these methods (heuristics) for adjudication, I want to emphasize that these are best used in situations when there is doubt. In other words, when there is already a rule in place, or when there is already what seems to be a clear application of a ruling within the fictional world, there is no need to employ these heuristics.
2. Method The First: The Parent/Cop, "Just Say No."
Beloved by parents, cops, and authority figures everywhere (especially the DMV), the first heuristic is often the simplest. When in doubt, just say no. Saying no never causes any problems. If there is a rule that allows something, great! That's the rule. But what is not allowed is forbidden! The advantage of this heuristic is the simplicity of the application, and the lack of unintended consequences. I have often seen new(er) DMs employ variations of this heuristic, simply because it is very difficult to ad lib, to improv, and to make permissive adjudications on the spot.
3. Method the Second: Mills Lane, "I'll Allow It."
If you don't get the reference, there used to be a show called Celebrity Deathmatch, and they would have (real-life) boxing referee Mills Lane in claymation, and no matter what happened in the ring, Mill Lane would say, "I'll allow it!" This is the superset of the 'rule of cool' or 'just have fun' or 'fan of players' or the 'say yes' mode of DMing. In effect, if there is no clear reason to say no to a player's action, then you allow it. While this heuristic sacrifices simplicity, especially for the DM, it tends to encourage more creative play from players.
4. Method the Third: Roll Dem Bones.
The final heuristic is the old, "When in doubt, roll the dice." Most of the bespoke subsystems in OD&D and AD&D arose organically from the early application of this heuristic. In 5e, the setting of DCs (for example) is nothing more than a loosely systematized way of codifying this heuristic into a rule. The advantage of this heuristic is that is provides variance for the resolution of player actions that are outside of the rules- the disadvantage is ... it provides randomness to the resolution of player actions that are outside of the rules. It's worth breaking this down quickly-
It's fair, because the DM will be rolling, and not choosing (unlike the other heuristics). It's also unfair, because the DM will be determining what the roll is (thumb on scale).
It's interesting, because it allows for more emergent outcomes due to randomness, but it's also occasionally frustrating, as players may have less ability to understand what those outcomes might be (in contrast to other heuristics).
CONCLUSION- Why does this matter?
5e is a great D&D system, in that it empowers DMs to make rulings. Unfortunately, the core books tend to treat DM adjudication as some sort of ad hoc, case-by-base issue, when most good DMs eventually come up with systematized heuristics for determining resolution.
When I look back at the history of D&D, I often see a commonality in the types of DMs that most people consider "good." For example, going all the way back to Gygax, you will see that while his books often seem punitive or "Just Say No" in nature, his actual play employed "I'll Allow It," or "Roll Dem Bones," as needed. However, that's because he expected a certain level of engagement that was outside of the stated rules. If a table (the DM and the players) prefer a game that is heavily into the rules and clarity, you might expect that an approach that heavily relies on "Just Say No" would work.
I think it is helpful for DMs to think about the heuristics that they are using when making these adjudications. Not because there is a single best one, but instead because it is an often unexamined aspect of DMing in 5e that can have a massive impact on the way that the game is run.
Edited for typos
Oh, one more thing- I use the terms 'heuristics' and 'DM heuristics' repeatedly. It's just a quick and fancy way of discusisng the internal 'rules of thumb' or 'shortcuts' that the DM is using. One easy example of a DM heuristic is the 'rule of cool' - some DMs will use a rule of cool heuristic and be more lenient if a player is trying to do something 'cool' (awesome, cinematic, fun).
1. The Original Problem, in three parts.
You can fool some of the people some of the time, and that's more than enough for a decent living.
D&D traditionally has a divide between subjects that the rules heavily prescribe, such as combat, and subjects that the rules do not heavily prescribe, such as the way that the plumbing system works in the world. Some rulesets are more light on prescription (OD&D, B/X) and some are more heavy on prescription (3e), but all D&D rulesets have that duality to some extent (between rulings and rules, between topics that are more rule-intensive such as combat, and topics that are not). This is partly due to the nature of TTRPGs in general - they are not circumscribed like a boardgame, and rely on a person (or persons, for some games) to describe the overall world. Since the world and the actions are not circumscribed, no ruleset can adequately capture everything that can be done. And this is partly due to the evolution of D&D in particular, and the need to rely on legacy aspects of the game.
With that in mind, there are three foundational issues that come up in D&D rulings. I'm not going to go into them in depth, as they aren't really the main focus of the post.
A. What is red, exactly?
To crib a little Gusdorf, language is imperfect. When I hear the word 'red' and when you hear the word 'red,' we both have similar images of colors- enough that we can communicate. Yet, the exact shade of 'red' that is in my mind will undoubtedly be different that what you picture. This is one way to describe the general loop in D&D-
a. DM pictures the scenario.
b. DM describes the scenario.
c. Player hears the scenario.
d. Player pictures the scenario.
e. Player describes player's action.
f. DM hears the player's description of player's action.
g. DM pictures how player's description of player's action will impact the scenario.
h. DM determines what to do- roll, ruling, rule, something else.
i. DM resolves the player's action.
Within that loop, there are numerous chances for a miscommunication, starting with the DM not describing the scenario (scene, encounter, room, etc.) that the DM has pictured in such a manner that the player will picture it in the same way. The vast majority of the time, this loop is simplified (combat, for example), or there are no issues. Nevertheless, imperfect communication, the inability to use language to convey what we mean with precision to each other, is always lurking in the background to these conversations.
B. A Ruling, or a Rule?
What is not a rule, we must pass over in silence. I'm not sure that Wittgenstein was thinking about D&D, but the phrase works well enough. The second issue that occurs in D&D is whether the issue is a ruling, or a rule. If it's a rule, there is a mechanical method of adjudication (the AC is X, so you must roll Y to hit). If there is no rule, or if the application of a rule is unclear, then the DM must determine what happens in the fictional world (The druid dons the metal armor ...). The boundaries of rulings and rules can be imprecise (is not wearing metal armor a rule? is setting a certain unspecified DC a ruling?), and issues often pop up in the liminal space between them.
C. Common sense is not so common.
Finally, we get to the third issue, one of the primary issues with "skilled play," and the one that gives rise to DM heuristics. Briefly put, when DMs are using their own common sense to make rulings, we often learn that so-called common sense isn't so common. On this, we can use the bat example:
A player says that he is casting silence on a swarm of bats that is attacking the party. How does the DM rule?
First, the DM might just look at the rules, not see anything in the 'natural language' of 5e with regard to bats and that spell, and say that nothing happens. But let's assume that this is a fictional world ruling, not just a keyword rule. Well-
DM A may not know anything about bats, and rule that nothing happens.
DM B may know that bats use echolocation to see, and rule that the silence has a devastating effect on the bats that is at least equivalent to blindness.
DM C may know a LOT about bats, and realizes that they aren't blind and the silence wouldn't effect the bats.
DM D also knows a LOT about bats, and thinks that while they wouldn't be blinded, the loss of their echolocation would be disorienting.
All four DMs are using their common sense of how the world works to adjudicate an action by the player, with disparate results. This type of issue (sometimes referred to, incorrectly, as "mother may I") will crop up in games whenever you move past the specified ruleset, and is why most DMs gravitate toward consistent heuristics for adjudications.
Before going into these methods (heuristics) for adjudication, I want to emphasize that these are best used in situations when there is doubt. In other words, when there is already a rule in place, or when there is already what seems to be a clear application of a ruling within the fictional world, there is no need to employ these heuristics.
2. Method The First: The Parent/Cop, "Just Say No."
Beloved by parents, cops, and authority figures everywhere (especially the DMV), the first heuristic is often the simplest. When in doubt, just say no. Saying no never causes any problems. If there is a rule that allows something, great! That's the rule. But what is not allowed is forbidden! The advantage of this heuristic is the simplicity of the application, and the lack of unintended consequences. I have often seen new(er) DMs employ variations of this heuristic, simply because it is very difficult to ad lib, to improv, and to make permissive adjudications on the spot.
3. Method the Second: Mills Lane, "I'll Allow It."
If you don't get the reference, there used to be a show called Celebrity Deathmatch, and they would have (real-life) boxing referee Mills Lane in claymation, and no matter what happened in the ring, Mill Lane would say, "I'll allow it!" This is the superset of the 'rule of cool' or 'just have fun' or 'fan of players' or the 'say yes' mode of DMing. In effect, if there is no clear reason to say no to a player's action, then you allow it. While this heuristic sacrifices simplicity, especially for the DM, it tends to encourage more creative play from players.
4. Method the Third: Roll Dem Bones.
The final heuristic is the old, "When in doubt, roll the dice." Most of the bespoke subsystems in OD&D and AD&D arose organically from the early application of this heuristic. In 5e, the setting of DCs (for example) is nothing more than a loosely systematized way of codifying this heuristic into a rule. The advantage of this heuristic is that is provides variance for the resolution of player actions that are outside of the rules- the disadvantage is ... it provides randomness to the resolution of player actions that are outside of the rules. It's worth breaking this down quickly-
It's fair, because the DM will be rolling, and not choosing (unlike the other heuristics). It's also unfair, because the DM will be determining what the roll is (thumb on scale).
It's interesting, because it allows for more emergent outcomes due to randomness, but it's also occasionally frustrating, as players may have less ability to understand what those outcomes might be (in contrast to other heuristics).
CONCLUSION- Why does this matter?
5e is a great D&D system, in that it empowers DMs to make rulings. Unfortunately, the core books tend to treat DM adjudication as some sort of ad hoc, case-by-base issue, when most good DMs eventually come up with systematized heuristics for determining resolution.
When I look back at the history of D&D, I often see a commonality in the types of DMs that most people consider "good." For example, going all the way back to Gygax, you will see that while his books often seem punitive or "Just Say No" in nature, his actual play employed "I'll Allow It," or "Roll Dem Bones," as needed. However, that's because he expected a certain level of engagement that was outside of the stated rules. If a table (the DM and the players) prefer a game that is heavily into the rules and clarity, you might expect that an approach that heavily relies on "Just Say No" would work.
I think it is helpful for DMs to think about the heuristics that they are using when making these adjudications. Not because there is a single best one, but instead because it is an often unexamined aspect of DMing in 5e that can have a massive impact on the way that the game is run.
Edited for typos
Last edited:
