D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[clearstream]

Yeah. The mechanics only tell you the result. It's completely up to the GM--completely, totally, absolutely arbitrary--what that result actually means, how that result happened.

I've never witnessed a "completely, totally, absolutely arbitrary" GM and I really wonder if you have?

Player "I attempt to pick the lock"
GM "The door turns into a canary and you are smitten by those tufty yellow wings. The house behind the door has gone somewhere else I'm really not sure where oh look, you've just turned into a shoe."

Rather GMs have the job of saying something that follows. In D&D, they "narrate the results of the adventurers' actions", not whatever the heck they like. They're part of the means D&D expects to be used for fabricating the play.

Nothing actually prevents the GM from saying it was meddlesome pixies, except the GM herself. Genuinely nothing.

Nothing prevents the GM from saying my character has turned into a shoe... but none have ever done so. This extreme view of GM arbitrariness sets aside some of the normal preconditions for a game to be played. The commitment participants have to the shared experience. GM narrates something simulative (if that is what the group is about) because they've committed to doing so.

 

[Emerikol]

It kind of goes along with the idea, "What the DM says goes, and if the DM says enough stupid stuff, the players go"

 

[Gimby]

Wrong. The thing about failed skill checks is that if the character had been more proficent, they would have succeeded. Ergo, any failed check is a consequence of the character being insufficiently skilled. Pixies don't come into it, it's no ones fault but the person using the skill.

The only exception is critical failures* on a natural one, if that rule is used. Because the check fails irrespective of skill. In which case, it could be due to something outside of the character's control, such as pixies. That's why a lot of tables don't use critical failure on skill checks.

*and successes

Note that if the skill check was with disadvantage, and they only role one 1, then whatever caused the disadvantage must have been the cause of the failure.

I can certainly see where you are coming from I suspect that's not how we actually narrate failures in a lot of cases.

The examples of breaking ropes, crumbling handholds and so on for our climber kind of demonstrate this - I posted upthread about the idea that we'll often narrate an external cause for a failure rather than an internal one - our climber could have their grip strength give out, run out of stamina or just fumble a foothold (without it breaking). We may do this as it preserves the concept of competence for the character and blames their failures on bad luck rather than incompetence.

As an aside I'd argue that this is more likely in 5e than 3e/4e as the randomiser is always significant in the decision making process (it's very hard to get bonuses to the level where it's not), whereas in earlier D20 games the bonus can swamp the randomiser, making it the major factor. It may feel a little unfair to the character concept of a proficient in athletics, 18 STR barbarian to fall from a DC 15 climb due to incompetence while a 8 STR non-proficient bard makes it up fine - so we might narrate the failure more on random chance than on inability.

It's also not (I'm pretty sure in 5.14, I haven't read 5.24) text that failure should be narrated that way - I don't think there's really any guidance at all in how to narrate failure.

 

[clearstream]

It kind of goes along with the idea, "What the DM says goes, and if the DM says enough stupid stuff, the players go"

I'd argue that if DM is saying stuff that off-piste, the game is probably not being validly played.

 

[Emerikol]

I'd argue that if DM is saying stuff that off-piste, the game is probably not being validly played.

Sure but really the recourse as players is just leave that campaign because if the DM is that clueless it is wrong then I'm not sure they are teachable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Wrong. The thing about failed skill checks is that if the character had been more proficent, they would have succeeded. Ergo, any failed check is a consequence of the character being insufficiently skilled. Pixies don't come into it, it's no ones fault but the person using the skill.

The only exception is critical failures* on a natural one, if that rule is used. Because the check fails irrespective of skill. In which case, it could be due to something outside of the character's control, such as pixies. That's why a lot of tables don't use critical failure on skill checks.

*and successes

Note that if the skill check was with disadvantage, and they only role one 1, then whatever caused the disadvantage must have been the cause of the failure.

Except that you, as GM, can do whatever you want.

That's been repeatedly reiterated, remember? The rules are your slave, not the other way around.

You can do whatever you want. That was the whole point you and others were absolutely insistent upon.

So you can declare whatever you want. The fact that the rules talk about skill doesn't mean squat. You can do whatever you want. You argued that. Not me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I've never witnessed a "completely, totally, absolutely arbitrary" GM and I really wonder if you have?

Player "I attempt to pick the lock"
GM "The door turns into a canary and you are smitten by those tufty yellow wings. The house behind the door has gone somewhere else I'm really not sure where oh look, you've just turned into a shoe."

Rather GMs have the job of saying something that follows. In D&D, they "narrate the results of the adventurers' actions", not whatever the heck they like. They're part of the means D&D expects to be used for fabricating the play.

People have been so keen to make absolutely clear that the rules are utterly subservient to them, not the other way around.

When the rules thus only tell you what results occur, and the GM is--as we have been so clearly, consistently informed--utterly free to ignore those rules whenever and however they want, GMs do not have this job. They can do whatever they want. No rule can bind them.

Nothing prevents the GM from saying my character has turned into a shoe... but none have ever done so. This extreme view of GM arbitrariness sets aside some of the normal preconditions for a game to be played. The commitment participants have to the shared experience. GM narrates something simulative (if that is what the group is about) because they've committed to doing so.

What preconditions can bind the GM? We have been so thoroughly told that nothing can bind them. No rules. No restrictions. Nothing.

It's so funny how as soon as you point out the costs of this "no gods no masters" philosophy, suddenly things that bind the GM are super awesome!

 

[FrogReaver]

I'd argue that if DM is saying stuff that off-piste, the game is probably not being validly played.

I would push back a little here. I think at times for certain groups they certainly can and are, but even in those it’s not okay 100% of the time all the time. Maybe 1% of the time or something.

I think maybe also the question of whether prep can be off piste. I notice sometimes prep is exempted here but maybe shouldn’t be.

 

[robertsconley]

I can think of (at least) three ways a human GM may trump a designed mode.

As a general observation, no system can be a perfect simulation or emulation of its subject. The goal of any design for a simulator or emulator is to reduce the error to the point where it is inconsequential for the purpose for which it is being used.

In the case of tabletop roleplaying campaigns, we have an overarching creative goal, whether it be my Living World Sandbox approach, which focuses on making the players feel like they visited the setting, or Burning Wheel's approach to drive the campaign through challenging the player character's beliefs and motivations. The goal is to have a system with mechanics and aides that cover the bulk of the things we wind up doing in the campaign, given those goals.

However, regardless of the creative goals, that system is going to be imperfect, not just in terms of scope, but also in how the mechanics handle various situations. Eventually, there will come a time when the best way to handle a specific situation is to break or alter the rules to deal with it more effectively, given the creative goal of the campaign.

After that, my recommendation would be to note the problem and work on it later to see if the system needs tweaking or if it was just a one-off, unlikely to happen again.

 

[Maxperson]

See, that's the point. There's nothing in the mechanics that necessitates that.

The mechnics and the narration --->must<--- match. That works both ways. The narrated attempt to climb the cliff forces the mechanics of falling distance to be about the cliff fall, which in turn forces narration about cliff falling and not pixies.

I mean, how does a skill check make my rope break? What sharp edge? How did my skill check add a sharp edge to a rock that cut my rope? You have repeatedly stated that skill checks cannot add or change the game world.

Those were general examples. Obviously a smooth cliff wouldn't have jagged edges, but a jagged cliff would. The narration has to fit all the circumstances, or at least not contradict them like a sharp edge on a smooth cliff.