Mearls on Balance in D&D

[hong]

How can it be "reading the DM's mind" when it is just one of endless possibilities in a game where you can attempt whatever you want?

Call it "going through a checklist of endless possibilities until you find one that satisfies whatever preconceived notions the DM has of plausibility, creativity and verisimilitude", then.

 

[el-remmen]

Call it "going through a checklist of endless possibilities until you find one that satisfies whatever preconceived notions the DM has of plausibility, creativity and verisimilitude", then.

Even if that were true, there could be only one? Come on.

 

[hong]

Call it "going through a checklist of endless possibilities until you find the first one that satisfies whatever preconceived notions the DM has of plausibility, creativity and verisimilitude", then.

FIFY

 

[ThirdWizard]

How can it be "reading the DM's mind" when it is just one of endless possibilities in a game where you can attempt whatever you want?

One of my old players jokingly used to say that I waited for the PCs to say key words in order to move the game along. So, as soon as a PC said "elf," the next plot point would occur and not before.

"Endless possibilities" is, I think, a red herring. Yes, the PCs can try whatever the players can think of. But, if the module tells the DM that the PCs can either fight through an area or disguise themselves as baby hill giants, then oftentimes those are the two things that will actually work. What are the odds that the players are going to think that particular thing?

 

[el-remmen]

Ah, I glossed over "first".

But anyway, what you've described is the job of a DM in my eyes - determine plausibility, creativity and verisimilitude.

Example:
"That skinny anemic wizard sure is gonna have an extra hard time pulling off being giant child, I'll apply a circumstance penalty."

or, determining the plausibility of a bluff attempt to modify the sense motive check.

 

[hong]

Ah, I glossed over "first".

That's because I fixed it.

But anyway, what you've described is the job of a DM in my eyes - determine plausibility, creativity and verisimilitude.

Example:
"That skinny anemic wizard sure is gonna have an extra hard time pulling off being giant child, I'll apply a circumstance penalty."

or, determining the plausibility of a bluff attempt to modify the sense motive check.

See, plausibility, creativity and verisimilitude are in the eye of the beholder. Is it creative to come up with fancy ways to divine a secret, using commune, contact other plane, etc? Players who like divination spells will probably think so, viewing the spells as being simply tools to be used like any other. A DM who's spent hours creating a mystery might think otherwise, however.

Similarly, is it smart tactics or foolishness to try to dress up as a giant if you're not? I think it's just silly. Someone else might think different. That's what the rules are for, to minimise the chances of conflicting assumptions. So I might think it's silly for the ordinary joe, but if you have Disguise +20 then you're clearly not an ordinary joe and I'll give it a chance.

 

[el-remmen]

What are the odds that the players are going to think that particular thing?

And what are the odds that the players are going to think of something totally different that is brilliant and the DM didn't even consider before they mention it?

Maybe it is just my style of DMing, but I rarely figure out the solutions to problems - I just create problems/scenarios and see how the players have their character's approach it. I may consider the likeliest possibilities - but in my experience players can be unpredictable.

 

[hong]

And what are the odds that the players are going to think of something totally different that is brilliant and the DM didn't even consider before they mention it?

Depending on the DM-player dynamics in question, the DM may well make a snap decision that it's ludicrous and forbid it from happening. Going from all the stories of DMs kiboshing ideas that are "totally different", I say this is more likely than not.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Maybe it is just my style of DMing, but I rarely figure out the solutions to problems - I just create problems/scenarios and see how the players have their character's approach it. I may consider the likeliest possibilities - but in my experience players can be unpredictable.

One of the cardinal rules of DMing is that it won't take long for the PCs to do something so unexpected that it derails everything you had planned after that point. And, I often live for those moments. But, the problem I see here is that the module is building in an expectation of the DM for a particular situation that will probably never arise in 90% of games. Putting this expectation in the mind of the DM is only reinforcing a mindset of what I call "say elf to proceed."

 

[el-remmen]

That's what the rules are for, to minimise the chances of conflicting assumptions.

I guess I disagree with that. The rules create a framework to describe the action, and when action falls out of the framework (which it often does), it is the job of the DM to create a quick patch on the fly and move on.

Conflicting assumptions are a matter of the social contract aspect of the game. You trust your DM to be even-handed and open-minded to the hair-brained schemes people can come up with some times, and the DM trusts the players to be creative and reasonable and respect the limits of the game even if they push at them a little bit every now and again.