D&D 5E Skills and Ability Checks -- Perspective on Consistency vs DM Empowerment

[Oofta]

The archer stunt is using a play off an existing ability method that I recommend as a quick and dirty because it starts with a well defined ability --- when a game has well defined abilities adjustment or bouncing off of those is much easier on me. I feel like most skill use just doesnt.

Even barring that specific example, I believe that if a DM is doing their job the adjudication of the rules (whether using an ability or any other ruling) will be fair and as consistent as possible.

That, and I don't think we need to give all characters supernatural abilities in order for them to contribute. It's never been an issue in any game I've ever participated in. Do some people hog the spotlight? Yes, but they do that no matter what the build.

 

[Garthanos]

Even barring that specific example, I believe that if a DM is doing their job the adjudication of the rules (whether using an ability or any other ruling) will be fair and as consistent as possible.

Hearing one mediocre difficulty vs another virtually impossible (whose effect was as I said far less than a level 1 spell) raises alarm bells saying to me the little red fiat system isn't providing guidelines that 3e and 4e had (nor parallel resources like 4e had) to encourage quality fair consistent rulings. I think the DMs breakfast is going to be the one determing difficulties and we need to start making sure the DM gets fed before we play.

 

[Oofta]

Hearing one mediocre difficulty vs another virtually impossible (whose effect was as I said far less than a level 1 spell) raises alarm bells saying to me the little red fiat system isn't providing guidelines that 3e and 4e had (nor parallel resources like 4e had) to encourage quality fair consistent rulings. I think the DMs breakfast is going to be the one determing difficulties and we need to start making sure the DM gets fed before we play.

If that's the case it's the fault of the DM, not the system. Or this game just isn't for you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Different people will be okay with different levels of what is allowed. If the DM is consistent and doesn't show favoritism I don't see an issue with it.

Favoritism is a negative spin (that is, it's presented as strictly a flaw of the DM, as a person) that implies unfair advantage granted to a given person. But DMs can have 'favorites' in other senses, as well, like a favored kind of scene, class, system artifact, situation, player reaction, etc, etc... Players who become familiar with the DM's preferences, style, &c lean can position themselves (or "fictionally position" their characters, I guess) to benefit from it more often than not. When spinning that negatively we call it 'gaming the DM,' when spinning the other way, 'skilled play.'

Taking away the spin, there's not a very clear line between 'favoritism' and 'judgement.' A good DM exercises judgement, a bad DM shows favoritism. Which is which? Well, it could be one of those I/you/they things: "I make impartial rulings" "you make judgement calls" "they show favoritism." They're really all the same thing, the DM making a decision based on his feelings, just with varying levels of self-awareness and different connotations.

 

[Charlaquin]

See, if a player told me they wanted to “replicate the effects of the Feather Fall spell,” I would ask them them to just tell me what their goal and approach are, and let me determine the best way to resolve that mechanically. If their goal is to reduce or eliminate the damage their ally will take from falling, and their approach is to throw a net around them and fire one or more arrows to catch the net, I would say that throwing the net and firing the arrow(s) would each require an attack, so they could do both if they have the Extra Attack feature, otherwise they would need one character to throw the net and another to fire the arrow(s). I’d say it’s moderate difficulty to throw the net around the falling character and a hard shot to make to catch the net with the arrow, so DC10 for the net throw, DC 15 for the bow attack. If both are successful, the falling character stops falling and takes no damage.

I could also see an argument for the arrow(s) not being able to support the character’s weight and instead saying it simply stops the fall briefly before breaking, effectively resetting the fall distance to start from the height the character was caught at. That might actually make for a more interesting decision because waiting until the last 10 feet could stop the damage completely, but trying it sooner might leave you more opportunities to try again. Either way, I would tell the player this and let them decide if they want to go through with the action or not.

Is that an unreasonable call? I mean, I don’t think so. It’s certainly not as effective as casting feather fall, but feather fall is a much more limited resource than arrows. And the players don’t really lose anything for trying and failing, apart from maybe an arrow or two. A lot of DMs would just straight-up rule that the action fails, so my ruling is a bit more generous in comparison.

 

[Charlaquin]

D&D is a game of lists. Lists of Spells or Powers or Polearms even LOL

It’s clear from this statement that you are playing a very different D&D than I am.

 

[Garthanos]

It’s clear from this statement that you are playing a very different D&D than I am.

Try removing the list of spells and get back to me. It won't feel like D&D and for a reason. The Polearms were a 1e joke.

 

[Garthanos]

Most games out there do not have the huge differentiated weapon lists though so its only slightly joking.

 

[Charlaquin]

Try removing the list of spells and get back to me. It won't feel like D&D and for a reason. The Polearms were a 1e joke.

D&D is a game that contains lists. It is not a game of lists, at least not the way I play it.

And in my opinion, an improvisational spellcasting system could work in D&D and still feel like D&D. Of course, I’m a 4e fan, so I evidently have a greater tolerance for what “feels like D&D” than many.

 

[Oofta]

Favoritism is a negative spin (that is, it's presented as strictly a flaw of the DM, as a person) that implies unfair advantage granted to a given person. But DMs can have 'favorites' in other senses, as well, like a favored kind of scene, class, system artifact, situation, player reaction, etc, etc... Players who become familiar with the DM's preferences, style, &c lean can position themselves (or "fictionally position" their characters, I guess) to benefit from it more often than not. When spinning that negatively we call it 'gaming the DM,' when spinning the other way, 'skilled play.'

Taking away the spin, there's not a very clear line between 'favoritism' and 'judgement.' A good DM exercises judgement, a bad DM shows favoritism. Which is which? Well, it could be one of those I/you/they things: "I make impartial rulings" "you make judgement calls" "they show favoritism." They're really all the same thing, the DM making a decision based on his feelings, just with varying levels of self-awareness and different connotations.

But in a TTRPG what you're saying (I think) is always going to be the case in a system like D&D. It's the blessing and the curse, a decision on what style of game suits Your needs. Are the rules as concrete as other systems? Of course not. The DM builds the world, makes judgments, and hopefully creates a fun game with his players. But there are no plot points, nobody is accumulating success tokens that can be spent to overcome obstacles, we do not pass Go and collect $200.

Unless the game is run like a board game, there's always going to be bias of one sort or another. It's why I freely admit I am not the best DM for everyone, nor is every DM going to be the right DM for me.