The core mechanic -- am I doing it wrong?

[Savage Wombat]

I personally would like to know BEFORE I swing from the chandelier whether I am doing something that will likely work and be cool, or something stupid with no chance of working and likely to get me killed.

"Try it and see" does not allow me to do that.

 

[Astrosicebear]

No offense, but pardon me while I retch.

I don't tell stories. I DM player driven campaigns.

No offense taken, but each table is different, and some DM's have a table of great players who can drive a very player-centric story. Some DMs have tables of rocks who wouldn't roleplay if their characters life depended upon it. To each their own style.

The benefit of D&D next seems to be that the system supports the players/DMS in the latter situation by giving both parties tools to make the game enjoyable for them.

 

[Astrosicebear]

I personally would like to know BEFORE I swing from the chandelier whether I am doing something that will likely work and be cool, or something stupid with no chance of working and likely to get me killed.

"Try it and see" does not allow me to do that.

I think the Ability scores will give you that idea. If you have an 8 DEX, its probably not going to end well if you try, but you could roll well. If you had an 18 DEX, you could probably do it without even rolling.

I think this comes down to DM and play style as far as adjudicating the situation.

 

[DMKastmaria]

I think the Ability scores will give you that idea. If you have an 8 DEX, its probably not going to end well if you try, but you could roll well. If you had an 18 DEX, you could probably do it without even rolling.

I think this comes down to DM and play style as far as adjudicating the situation.

Any decent DM would give you an idea of what your chances were. I'd tell you how I was going to adjudicate it, as well. And if you had an idea for a better mechanic, I'd listen.

We're back to reasonableness.

 

[hanez]

I personally would like to know BEFORE I swing from the chandelier whether I am doing something that will likely work and be cool, or something stupid with no chance of working and likely to get me killed.

"Try it and see" does not allow me to do that.

I would to. There are simple ways to do this, (Dexterity), skills (acrobatics, jump etc) and conversation with the DM ("I look at the chandalier and think about jumping, do I think I have a good chance of doing it? ")

Consistency and learning how a DM arbitrates helps. For example I might respond to a player inquiring about this "well your pretty dextrous, I think you'd make the jump easy (DC 10), hanging on would be simple with your strength(no roll), but landing just so on the moving enemy will be the tough part (DC 20 or just an attack roll with a -4 to it). Overall I think with your skills you have a OK chance of making it and with the fall driving your sword into his head your likely to double your damage, and if you screw up you'll just take some fall damage (1d6) so it seems like its worth a shot "

On the other hand I have seen powers that try to emulate something like above, which makes it less interesting (my players ignore the fluff unfortunately) and more routine, plus if they DONT have the power they often feel they cant attempt it. So we end up having more of a mechanized (albeit fairer and more transparent) boring game.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think this difference is precisely the difference between old school gamers and new school gamers. Old school gamers like the idea that you say what you'd LIKE to do, and the DM determines how hard that is and exactly how you go about doing it.

In new school gaming, the DM or the player or both consult the rules to see how hard something is and how you go about doing it. If an example isn't in the book, they try to approximate one based on the existing examples. If a rule isn't available on HOW to do something, they make it up, but they pick the closest, fairest rule and adapt it accordingly.

Often, in old school gaming there is literally zero examples of how difficult something is or even any rules on how to do anything remotely like what you are asking.

Sometimes this results in wildly different ways to handle the same situation from DM to DM. In one DM's game jumping off a chandelier and on to an enemy to attack would be handled with a str check to jump far enough to grab it, a dex check to hang on and another dex check to land near enough your target to attack(and on your feet), then you'd get a -5 to your attack roll for attacking in such an awkward fashion without proper footing to make your attack. Fail any of the rolls and you'd end up flat on your face, losing your next turn and taking damage from the fall.

In another DM's game, you might succeed automatically and get a +5 bonus to the roll and double damage for surprising the enemy.

I've found most DMs don't really tell you your chance of success in advance. Most of the time, in my experience, asking this question gets responses like "You don't know, you've never tried it before...try it and find out." This is because most DMs have no idea what the rules will be for this sort of thing before they come out of their mouths. I had a DM who ruled something similar to the first example. It was obvious he had no idea I was going to be making a dex check to determine if I landed in the right spot until after I made the dex check to grab the chandelier. And he was hoping I'd fail the grab the chandelier roll so he didn't have to keep making up rules.

Other times no one asks how difficult something will be simply because of a difference in perception, knowledge, and life experience. A player may find the idea of jumping over a 5 ft hole perfectly normal and easy to do. A DM may think: "5 ft? I can't jump that far without a running start, no matter how hard I try. It's an impossible task." So, the conversation never happens. The player just says "Well, I jump over the hole" and the DM says "You try, but you fall to your death instead."

Or the example I keep using, where a player uses a fireball in a wooden building, the DM says "You're sure? It's a small building, you'll set the place on fire?" The player says "Sure, it's the enemies base, we'll burn it down in the process of beating them." So, then the battle continues for a round after that, and the DM tells everyone that they are taking fire damage because of the blazing, out of control inferno that has engulfed the room they are standing in. The player says "It's only been 1 round! How is the entire room on fire, I only hit that one wall?" The DM says "It's made of wood, fire spreads extremely fast." Meanwhile, the player made their decision based on the fact that he thought the fire would take 10 or 15 minutes to burn down the building and they'd be long gone before that happened.

 

[malkav666]

Perhaps I am Asperger's or something; I don't feel like it's about interacting with the DM the way I do it. The DM is basically playing the role of the X-box in Dragon Age: Origins -- it would feel weird to say the core mechanic there is about "interacting" with the computer. It's about the player deciding things and seeing what happens.

I also tend to not do anything that isn't on my character sheet or in the rules... being able to do those things is what the game hooked me with, and that's what I want to do. If I can argue someone into something, but I don't get to roll an Intimidate check, I'm not happy.

I think this is what Zak S's most recent post is about -- people who play D&D, but without social skills. I think the next time I watch people fudging the rules I'll try to see it from the perspective Monte's quote seemed to come from: "for them, this is just a way to get their emotions entrained together and feel friendly. Like a party."

Your post made me sad. The DM is like an Xbox? An Xbox with a really really bad Crpg in it no less. You do understand that the DM is a player as well don't you? The storyteller plays D&D with you. They do not just take a bunch of time out of their week prepping for game day so they can be your character sheet's math co-processor once a week. It is a storytelling collaboration where you do not have to have a rule for everything. You have a player playing with you who gave up being one of the heroes in the story your group is making to play the bad guys and everybody else the players meet to make the story more real for everyone.I have been Dming games for just over 20 years and the information on any given players toon sheet is never as important to me the contributions they make to the game from the stuff in their heads. I have also never felt at anytime I was running a game that I was not a player in that game as well.



May I ask you a theoretical question?
(If yes please continue if not you can skip right to the end)

What if you were playing in a game of D&D or whatever and your character sheet by whatever means had clearly printed on it that your character could jump 30 ft at will. This 30ft jump would have been perfectly rules legal. How would you feel if the DM did not let you jump 30ft because it did not make sense with game, or for the encounter, just didn't like the ability, or whatever other reason you want to ascribe to the story teller for this denial. How would it make you feel about the game system and/or the DM?

Thanks in advance for the answer.

love,

malkav

 

[DMKastmaria]

I've found most DMs don't really tell you your chance of success in advance. Most of the time, in my experience, asking this question gets responses like "You don't know, you've never tried it before...try it and find out." This is because most DMs have no idea what the rules will be for this sort of thing before they come out of their mouths. I had a DM who ruled something similar to the first example. It was obvious he had no idea I was going to be making a dex check to determine if I landed in the right spot until after I made the dex check to grab the chandelier. And he was hoping I'd fail the grab the chandelier roll so he didn't have to keep making up rules.

Most old school DM's today, have had 25+ years to figure out how to handle this sort of thing. I was ok at it when I was 14. I'm 43 now. I've had a lot of practice.

Not to mention, hashing and re-hashing Ruling ideas in the OSR blogosphere, over the past 3 years.

Now, when I was 14 and wasn't sure how to handle something I'd discuss it with my players. We were friends and all took turns DMing, so it was the natural thing to do.

I've got several ways of adjudicating "chandeliers" today, though I stick with certain ones, unless I have a good reason not to. I still solicit player input, though. Because it's a cooperative game, I don't let my ego get in the way of DMing and I like it that way.

 

[hanez]

I think the new gamer/old gamer isn't really as big of a divide, or at least its not a hard one to bridge. Rather I think the divide is between people who play D&D with friends and those who play organized or competitive play. Its a lot easier to trust and give leeway to your bud who is just DMing because no one else wanted to, or because hes really creative and wanted to try something cool. Its easier to have a talk with him afterword to have effects on the game (hey I think if you ruled it like this, everyone may have had a better time). Its easy to play like that with friends. On the other hand when your DM is some guy who you were assigned at your local game shop, or its played over the internet, you really would like some rules to back up what this guy is doing (not to mention to protect you from people you dont know who might just be playing to "Win").

This divide troubles me a bit, as I see many of the core aspects between the gamestyles in opposition.


Also as for experienced DMs and bad calls. Ive been playing for 15 years. Ive made tooons of bad calls. Thats what D&D is about. My friends tell me during or afterword and we make the most of it. We all play together. Im a player to, and of course I make mistakes. I think they know if anything I try and error on fun of the game.

They also know I listen, for example if they say they found something really cool in a video game or movie, I make a mental note to make an adventure related to it. If one player loves liches, well its my job to make sure he finds a manual on how to become a lich. Of courseif he doesnt heeds the warning in the manual after a few levels of fun lich powers our next campaign will be about hunting him down and killing him lol, like I said, Im a player too.

I dont see the rules light vs rules heavy mechanix/rules debate as an argument. Too many rules and its D&D minis, too lil rules and everyone can be a triple gestalt jedi class. This is about finding the optimum D&D roleplaying experience. In my personal view, a healthy dose of confidence in DM arbitration using the D20 mechanic is a good start.

 

[Tallifer]

I do not enjoy playing in a game with people constantly trying to come up with strange and imaginative and showy things to do. A little bit is entertaining. A lot of improv just slows the combat down or drags out the conversation with the NPC.