Loader image
Loader image
Back to Top

Blog

Nerdarchy > Dungeons & Dragons  > New DM Handbook: My Philosophy on Mechanics

New DM Handbook: My Philosophy on Mechanics

What DnD Isn't
Why Spell Casters Are Sexy

Introduction

Integral to this series is my initial philosophy on how to run my D&D games.  In all honesty, I have no handbook philosophy machanics idea how to run a game without breaking it.  For a vast majority of it, I’m not going to stray very far from the books, but I also recognize that 5E isn’t perfect, and it doesn’t fulfill all of my needs.  As an example, I intend on being somewhat flexible with the Backgrounds, as is necessary, but really only if none of the preexisting ones don’t fit the character concept.  Beyond that, my DM cornerstone is going to be if it’s logical.

Does it make sense?

My foremost directive when applying any decision or rule is if, as I just said, it’s logical based on game mechanics, my lore, and whether it makes sense.  As an example, according to the rules, the Ranger Beast Master must use an action to give their Beast Companion (different than a pet) a command whenever they want them to perform an action.  That follows the rules of how a Beast Master works, but it doesn’t make any sense.  If every round is six seconds long, that means that the Beast Master makes a command, the Beast Companion follows the order, then sits back down without any command to stay. handbook philosophy machanics handbook philosophy machanics

When was the last time an attack dog stopped attacking before the target is dead or down without a command to do so?  Common sense would dictate that the Beast Companion would continue their last order until their target is dead or a new order is given.  Without any kind of real-world experience, the balance in my mind is that the PC has to manage the Ranger and the Companion.  If they’re not careful, they could be put in a situation that one or both are at risk to die.  A smart DM would maneuver them to force them to choose between their Ranger and their Companion.  That makes the most sense to me.

Logical Settings

Lore logic is going to be much more difficult to pin down.  What it comes down to is an evolution of events and mechanics.  Orcish is based on Dwarfish, or at least that’s what the Player’s Handbook says.  Language evolution works pretty much exactly like biological evolution.  Compare Beowulf, Chaucer’s House of Fame, Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s A Study in Scarlet.

There’s a significant change in many aspects of each of them.  English also has significant influence from French, due to the Norman invasion, where the Normans (French) ruled over England for a while, marking a major shift in English, as well as the distinction between Old English and Middle English.  If Orcish is rooted in Dwarvish, that means that they originated in the same area, either at the same time or the Orcs developed after the Dwarves had started establishing societies.

handbook philosophy machanics handbook philosophy machanicsIn my lore, at the dawn of time, there was a great war between the deities (I’m using the Dawn War deities), soldiered by demons, dragons, and angels.  In the end, both sides decided to end the war.  Each side had members settle on the main continent.  The demons and the chromatic dragons in the West, and the angels and metallic dragons in the East. A mighty mountainous range and roaring rapid river was used to divide each half.

Over the span of millions of years, the staying demons evolved into Tieflings, dragons into Dragonborn, and angels into Aasimar.  Being that the Orcs are evil, and the Dwarves are linked to the Orcs through language, logic dictates that the Mountain Dwarves have a heavy footing within the Western Continent along with the evil races.  The most likely scenario, being that several other languages, including Gnome, Goblin, and Giant, are all rooted in Dwarvish, is that the Dwarves come out of the Southern Continent (which is where the Gnomes, Goblins, Halflings, etc. are going to be), and expanded their kingdoms along the mountain range in the Western Continent, effectively spreading their cultural influence over a very large area.

RAW, RAI, RAF, or Common Sense Rulings

I know this is a well worn tread, but this is about my take on the game.  My goal is to make ruling based on what makes sense within context, BUT in ways that aren’t game-breaking.

I’m sure that Dual Wielder is the most debated Feat for rulings.  To me, the verbiage dictates that you gain the two-weapon fighting style, because you can “use” two-weapon fighting.  More importantly, however, is that without being given that fighting style, Dual Wielder becomes nearly useless.  Getting a +1 to AC, being able to wield heavier weapons, and drawing/stowing weapons doesn’t come close to giving up two ability score points.  It wouldn’t even otherwise compare to any benefits offered by other Feats.  Even going up to the Feat right above it, Defensive Duelist allows you to add your proficiency modifier to your AC as a reaction, which is already a minimum of twice the benefit that Dual Wielder gets, and Defensive Dualist scales, where Dual Wielder doesn’t.  To me, common sense just dictates that Dual Wielder should get the two-weapon fighting style.

Secondly, the way that I look at it is that it’s better to give the player the ruling, but let them know that you’ll adjust it if it starts to become game-breaking.  If it’s something like a Feat, give them the option of replacing it, even if the ruling happened several levels ago.  Honestly, in many things, sometimes it just takes time to see how things play out.  Something may not be apparent until the right circumstances rise.handbook philosophy machanics handbook philosophy machanics

If you can, re-skin it

When mechanics are under question, then mechanics should be the thing that rules all.  If you have a Gnome that wants to be a Ranger, don’t punish them because they’re smaller than the bow.  Find a way for it to make sense.  This example is very specific because, for my first game, one of my players picked a Gnome Beast Master Ranger (more on that later).  The Ranger gets a longbow, which does 1d8 damage.

I’m sure most DMs would tell them that they can have the lower damage 1d6 short bow.  After all, it makes more sense.  It does, but it’s also not fair.  So, re-skin it.  For my player, I told her to write “Recursive Bow” on her character sheet instead of longbow, because the recursive is a more energy efficient bow than the longbow, and it deals similar force.  Simple fix that makes it fair.  That ideal can really be applied everywhere.  As long as the mechanics are the same, let the player have the Buster Sword.  It still only does 2d6, and within 5 feet, but it’s going to make the player happy, so let them have it.

New DM Handbook: My Philosophy on Mechanics

 

Share
Joshua Brickley

Despite looking so young, I'm in my mid-30s (36, to be exact). Up until I was 21, I focused a lot of my attention on stage acting, mostly local and school theater. At some point, I felt a need to change my life's direction, so I joined the Air Force. After 10 years, where I was an Intelligence Analyst and Mission Coordinator, I was medically retired. I went back to school and got my Bachelor's in English, focusing mostly on literary theory and rhetorical criticism, at the University of the Incarnate Word. In this next chapter of my life, I'm turning my attention towards tabletop RPGs.

No Comments

Leave a Reply