D&D 5E How to Rule: Three Ways to Adjudicate in D&D

[BookTenTiger]

Comparing DMing to teaching again, as a teacher I'm always seeking to put systems in place so that I don't have to make authoritarian decisions. If the students buy into the system, I can remind them of what the system "says" instead of forcing them to behave through my ego.

As a DM, I feel like the dice are that system. When in doubt, I'll have players roll. Even when success is guaranteed, I'll often have players roll, if only for descriptive effect. The Strength 18 barbarian can easily break through that old, rotting wooden door, but a 24 Athletics check is going to look a lot cooler than a 5.

On top of that, I apply the edict "everything should have an effect." If a player is going out of their way to try something, especially if it's at a cost (a spell slot, risk of HP loss, etc), then there will be an effect.

This effect may just be knowledge (you find out the enemy is immune to fire), or a cool visual, but more often than not I'll fall back on Advantage / Disadvantage... So in the bat example, if the character casts Silence on.the bats, I'll absolutely say "oh yeah those bats now have disadvantage to perception checks, that's a great idea."

 

[Minigiant]

While I’m a big fan of this technique, I don’t think it’s really a heuristic, as they’re being defined here.

Exactly. The point of heuristics is to make quick and consistent judgement without heavy thinking that are semi-accurate for what is needed right now.

 

[Aging Bard]

The more you want to play an RPG as a game (and not a story), and to play skillfully (back to your OP), the more you need to convert rulings into rules that you carry into future play. Skillful play requires an understanding of opportunities and odds, and if these are inconsistent, the game boils down to convincing the GM to do what you want each time (Rule of Cool falls under this). I can understand some people preferring this latter style of play, but I don't.

If your players are constantly asking to swing from chandeliers, then you ought to have a rule to do that so that they know the risks and rewards. Crazy one-off requests probably don't need a rule. A compromise to making lots of new rules from rulings is to make the mechanic for rulings foreseeable. This is not a perfect example, but a group could agree that any action that requires a ruling will first be ruled as some kind of ability check. This provides foreseeability as to the mechanic, and probably the ability score as well, so the player can think ahead.

Here's a question I have, as I truly do not have enough experience with 5e to know the answer. The whole "5e is easy for new players to play" pitch is partially based upon the modularity and optionality of various 5e rulesets. Is it also the case that the return of rulings to 5e is also being used to simply avoid having to learn all the rules? We know that players will happily learns rules they like (character creation, combat), and if a player requests to do something complex, the DM can always default to ruling a DC check of some kind instead. That would be a new form of ruling if it is taking place, at least compared to older styles of play.

 

[Minigiant]

Here's a question I have, as I truly do not have enough experience with 5e to know the answer. The whole "5e is easy for new players to play" pitch is partially based upon the modularity and optionality of various 5e rulesets. Is it also the case that the return of rulings to 5e is also being used to simply avoid having to learn all the rules?

It's kinda the opposite.

It's often so players and DMs don't have to look up the rules because they are supposed to know them.
That's the goal of heuristic approaches. To increase speed and clarity without losing too much accuracy. The idea is that the rules are all supposed to be known because those are the things you can't speed up without being very inaccurate or unclear.

The conversion from ruling to rule is for when heuristics breaks down.

 

[Voadam]

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).

While I’m a big fan of this technique, I don’t think it’s really a heuristic, as they’re being defined here.

Exactly. The point of heuristics is to make quick and consistent judgement without heavy thinking that are semi-accurate for what is needed right now.

I think DM adjudicates based on rule of cool fits heuristics as defined here.

In my experience "does it seem reasonable to you" whether in a realism framework or a genre framework is often a quick, easy to apply rule of thumb.

I use it often as my general rule of thumb for adjudicating situations quickly that are not straightforward rules applications.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think DM adjudicates based on rule of cool fits heuristics as defined here.

In my experience "does it seem reasonable to you" whether in a realism framework or a genre framework is often a quick, easy to apply rule of thumb.

I use it often as my general rule of thumb for adjudicating situations quickly that are not straightforward rules applications.

I guess I’ll let @Snarf Zagyg be the judge of if this fits with how they were using the term heuristics in their opening post, but to me, “ruling based on what seems reasonable” appears to be what’s going on in the hypothetical Silence cast on a swarm of bats scenario, which was specifically being used to demonstrate the need for heuristics. What seems reasonable will vary from DM to DM based on a lot of factors, including things like their knowledge of chiropterology.*

Now, to be clear, I’m very much in favor of the “does it seem reasonable to you?” guideline. I just think it’s the exact opposite of what Snarf is defining as a heuristic here.

*again, for this specific example, we have to ignore the fact that the 5e rules are actually quite clear on what happens to a swarm of bats when silence is cast on them. Namely, they can’t use their blindsight

 

[Aging Bard]

I don't think your 3 methods are always distinct, and can often be combined into a consistent rule.

Example: swinging on a rope across a gorge (which did not have a rule in older editions):
Case 1: 5' across--automatic success in almost every case
Case 2: 200' across--tell the player this will fail and then let the player fall where they may
Case 3: 30' across--DM decides that 10-50' require a Str or Dex check, set the rules, and use them going forward

As a player, I'd prefer knowing this up front as opposed to relying on the DM being consistent, and I'd also prefer it as a DM.

However, your bat example is really excellent and shows how my preferred approach ultimately cannot escape making some rulings. In an ideal world, your bat example should be part of the ruleset about bats. But there is no way we can matrix every monster with every possible effect. Conditions and statuses reduce the complexity, but they still can't handle all cases. Any your example continues to be excellent because it solidly shows that DM skill and knowledge matter and will always be a variable across tables.

 

[DemoMonkey]

Thank you Snarf! That is a great explanation of the only good way to play D&D and why the other ways are bad.

 

[Oofta]

I guess I would say I base my heuristics on a different standard: what type of movie or TV show am I trying to emulate. Although maybe that's just genre.

In other words, am I trying to replicate the look and feel of a relatively realistic war movie such as Saving Private Ryan? A action flick like the Die Hard movies (or LOTR)? Superhero Avengers? Wire fu Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? Over the top anime?

So for me I do action movie logic most of the time. What the PC is attempting has to look plausible even if it isn't particularly realistic. This seems to fit the feel of D&D to me. You can even see that moment in a lot of action sequences where the protagonist fighter gets that second wind because he just had a memory of that puppy he had when he was a kid or something.

But it's also a mix. Once I make a ruling, I like to stick with the theme for the campaign. I think consistency in rulings is important unless you realize that it was just a bad ruling. In addition, there are times when I will do a timeout and ask the group what they think the ruling will should be. I always warn them though, whatever we decide works for the enemy as well, so just keep it in mind.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess I’ll let @Snarf Zagyg be the judge of if this fits with how they were using the term heuristics in their opening post, but to me, “ruling based on what seems reasonable” appears to be what’s going on in the hypothetical Silence cast on a swarm of bats scenario, which was specifically being used to demonstrate the need for heuristics. What seems reasonable will vary from DM to DM based on a lot of factors, including things like their knowledge of chiropterology.*

The bat scenario doesn't even fall within any of his three DM ruling methods.

Player: I cast silence on the swarm of bats.
DM: I'll allow it.
Player: Okay, what happens?
DM: ...

Player: I cast silence on the swarm of bats.
DM: No.
Player: Er, that's what my PC does. I control his actions.
DM: ...

Player: I cast silence on the swarm of bats.
DM: Okay. Roll for it.
Player: Roll for what?
DM: ...

Lots of situations fall outside any sort of set rules and rulings, and have to be ruled on as best the DM can, and the bats scenario is a perfect example of that. And would be happy with a DM ruling B, C, or D, happily and quickly educating him if he tried A. As long as the DM is trying to be both reasonable and fair, I'm okay with things, even if they don't match reality exactly.