Bad DM or unreasonable request?

[Bahamut7]

End of a previous session, my party and I get captured. We get a few role playing as we are being brought down into the enemies underground outpost. When asked what I am doing, I state that I am counting my steps and plotting out the layout in my mind from entrance to cell. Next session rolls around and I remind the DM I need a rough map of the outpost from the entrance to my jail cell or directions that will allow me to plot out my own makeshift map (would have preferred this).

Session starts I still don't have this and when I ask again, he begins to insist on a Dungeoneering check, after he retconed that we were brought in with sacks over our heads (after I requested how many doors I saw on the way to my cell). I kindly remind him there is no dungeoneering skill in 5e and that this information should not warrant a roll. He keeps insisting and forunately I get a 20 on my investigation check which gives me information about the stonework...:smallannoyed: I gave up on the information I should have had and dealt with it. The Rogue and I (Monk) broke out of our cell and proceeded to murderhobo our way out, find the other half of the party, and ended the session.

While this is a partial rant, I do have a legit question. At what point, do players say no to an unnecessary skill check for information that should be a given with the RP that acquired it? Though I gave in, should I have not? Or was my resistance to a roll wrong on my part?

[Tanarii]

While this is a partial rant, I do have a legit question. At what point, do players say no to an unnecessary skill check for information that should be a given with the RP that acquired it? Though I gave in, should I have not? Or was my resistance to a roll wrong on my part?
The DM determines if something requires a roll or not, and sets the DC if he determines it does. That said, it's generally a good idea to get a good idea if the DM is going to be a 'roll for everything' kinda guy before the game begins. The DMG has several different styles of how often to call for rolls discussed in it (DMG p236, The Role of Dice) , and roll for everything (Rolling with It) is one of them. I try not to do that too often myself ... I try to keep in mind if an untrained person would be likely to fail 50% of the time before I call for a DC 10 ability check.

That said, personally I don't consider a DC 10 Intelligence check un-called for in this case. Because recalling things is explicitly what Intelligence is for, and building a mental map from remembered step counting sounds to me like something an untrained person would fail about 1/2 the time. If a player requested a proficiency bonus for it, I'd probably also allow Investigation to apply, since the 'build a mental map' part sounds pretty deductive. So Intelligence (Investigation) DC 10 check. If a player noted he'd specifically said he was counting steps in advance, indicating he was planning ahead, which is something I like to encourage, then I'd likely grant advantage.

If I found out they'd later ranted about it in anonymously in an online forum, I'd probably laugh. :smallyuk: Nothing personal, I'm kinda an ******* that way.

Edit: By the way the DMG notes in the section 'Rolling with It': A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success. That sounds to me like a pretty good summary of how you appear to feel.

[Bahamut7]

The DM determines if something requires a roll or not, and sets the DC if he determines it does. That said, it's generally a good idea to get a good idea if the DM is going to be a 'roll for everything' kinda guy before the game begins. The DMG has several different styles of how often to call for rolls discussed in it (DMG p236, The Role of Dice) , and roll for everything (Rolling with It) is one of them. I try not to do that too often myself ... I try to keep in mind if an untrained person would be likely to fail 50% of the time before I call for a DC 10 ability check.

That said, personally I don't consider a DC 10 Intelligence check un-called for in this case. Because recalling things is explicitly what Intelligence is for, and building a mental map from remembered step counting sounds to me like something an untrained person would fail about 1/2 the time. If a player requested a proficiency bonus for it, I'd probably also allow Investigation to apply, since the 'build a mental map' part sounds pretty deductive. So Intelligence (Investigation) DC 10 check. If a player noted he'd specifically said he was counting steps in advance, indicating he was planning ahead, which is something I like to encourage, then I'd likely grant advantage.

If I found out they'd later ranted about it in anonymously in an online forum, I'd probably laugh. :smallyuk: Nothing personal, I'm kinda an ******* that way.

Edit: By the way the DMG notes in the section 'Rolling with It': A drawback of this approach is that roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success. That sounds to me like a pretty good summary of how you appear to feel.

Yea, I do feel it took away from me trying to RP a character and it seemed more like he was trying to limit intel (or didn't want to bother) which combined with the fact I got stonework information just made me throw my hands in the air, benefit of roll20.

Now background for the campaign is that we are part of a mercenary group. I don't feel the group would be that untrained to not be considerate of this intel.

I do understand the roll for everything approach, but I didn't feel up to this point he was playing that way, granted now I will be more mindful of that. I only came on here to get a consensus of opinions, before the next session. I intend to still talk with him, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being unreasonable.

[Tanarii]

Now background for the campaign is that we are part of a mercenary group. I don't feel the group would be that untrained to not be considerate of this intel.By "untrained" I mean "has an ability score of 10 and no proficiency". If your character is trained in something, that is reflected by having an ability score of more than 10 and/or having proficiency. For example a character with an Int 18 has some combination of aptitude and training that gives him a +4 bonus to checks, in other words a 70% chance to do something an 'untrained' adventurer would have a 50% chance to do. It's also worth noting that D&D 5e assumes that we're talking about 'untrained' adventurers (ie PCs with a score of 10 and no proficiency) having a 50% chance to fail a task.


I do understand the roll for everything approach, but I didn't feel up to this point he was playing that way, granted now I will be more mindful of that. I only came on here to get a consensus of opinions, before the next session. I intend to still talk with him, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being unreasonable.Personally, when I'm a player, I don't ever feel a DC 10 check, with proficiency bonus from a skill or tool allowed to apply (even if my character doesn't have it), is unreasonable for any sort of somewhat complex task. I wouldn't even object if a DM decided that making a makeshift map from observations was a DC 15 check. I don't think you're necessarily being unreasonable. I just don't think I would think the DM was, if it was me at the table.

That said, if it was retconned that we'd had our heads covered, I might make a snide comment that important details like that be included in the future*. I would probably be irritated if I was asking to determine a makeshift path / map from memory, and I was given information about the kind of stone instead. To me that indicates the DM doesn't understand the point of adjudication. "I want to make a mental map" is a pretty clear intent, and "by memorizing my steps and turns" is a fairly clear approach. What kind of stonework my PC saw doesn't seem like a related outcome in any way. I should either succeed at my action, or fail at it. Not be told to make unrelated checks and given unrelated outcomes.

*DMs forget important details all the time. The classic example is describing a room's furnishings in detail, and not ever mentioning the (huge) enemy sitting right in the middle of the room.

[Bahamut7]

By "untrained" I mean "has an ability score of 10 and no proficiency".

That said, if it was retconned that we'd had our heads covered, I might make a snide comment that important details like that be included in the future*. I would probably be irritated if I was asking to determine a makeshift path / map from memory, and I was given information about the kind of stone instead. To me that indicates the DM doesn't understand the point of adjudication. "I want to make a mental map" is a pretty clear intent, and "by memorizing my steps and turns" is a fairly clear approach. What kind of stonework my PC saw doesn't seem like a related outcome in any way. I should either succeed at my action, or fail at it. Not be told to make unrelated checks and given unrelated outcomes.

*DMs forget important details all the time. The classic example is describing a room's furnishings in detail, and not ever mentioning the (huge) enemy sitting right in the middle of the room.

I see what you mean by untrained now. Hilarious point you brought up at the end as I have been on the receiving end of such a missed observation, thankfully that was retconned asap. Lol.

[TrinculoLives]

I think a roll is justified, and not only if the party is playing with the "Roll with it" playstyle, because the information about the most direct route out of the dungeon can alter how the whole session will play.

What I imagine happened is that the DM created a dungeon for you guys to play through. He showed up to the game and was reminded of a detail that he had not considered when creating the dungeon: that one of the PCs tried to memorize the route in from the entrance. And now the player in question is asking for a rough map of the route.

This may have disgruntled the DM a fair amount, as none of this was in his plans for the game session. "Oh crap, well now whats-his-face is going to bypass the part of the dungeon where the other half of the party is and I'm going to have to deal with a split-party for the rest of the game."

Hence the description of stone-work that the DM gave you. I think your request, or demand, for information backed him into a corner.

In conclusion, it sounds* as though the DM exhibited some newby-DM behaviour by not allowing for your character to have an idea of the best route out, and by ret-conning the bags-over-head. With experience, this sort of thing should disappear from your DM's games.

I think the best approach is to be empathetic. Your DM may simply have been worried that the dungeon would be wrecked if you had this information. That might mean that the dungeon was poorly designed, but getting upset about it isn't going to help anyone. Alternatively, consider whether not knowing the information might actually make the whole session better, albeit frustrating at first. Perhaps "limiting intel" was the only way the DM could think of to make the game play out in the way he thought would be best.

Good luck!


*Based off nothing more than your description of events, which should be taken with a grain of salt as bullying your dm (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijzjYPzCJDU) is a real thing that happens at game tables and this could possibly be an example of that.

P.S.
Oh! And to answer your question:
"At what point, do players say no to an unnecessary skill check for information that should be a given with the RP that acquired it?"

When they no longer wish to play with said DM. The game doesn't really work if players can decide to simply not roll a check.

P.P.S.
I think it is a good idea to talk to your DM about this. I think it would be best to approach this conversation by telling your DM how you felt frustrated because it felt as though your character simply was not able to memorize the path into the dungeon. The retconning of hoods also seemed deliberately placed there to make it harder for my character to know the way out, you could say.

It would be unwise, on the other hand, to tell the DM that you think he made some bad calls and needs to design his dungeons better and to give your character the ability to memorize paths without checks in the future.

[JNAProductions]

This sounds like a reasonable case to call for an Int check. That seems like a difficult task for your average person-I think DC 15 would actually be pretty reasonable.

Now, since you got a nat 20, you should DEFINITELY remember it, but I think your DM was pretty reasonable in calling for a check here.

[Silfazaris]

I'd have required a DC 10 roll, but if you succeeded, then I'd give you the path from the entrance to the cell.

I'm playing an old character from an old game in a new game (same DM). The old character had rogue levels and was very good into bluffing, forgering and with sense motive (D&D 3.5). Now he's Dming again and I have no rogue levels.
I try to overcome the lack of these skills now with very good roleplaying, but no matter how good you roleplay, sometimes the DM might ask you a check. It's just like trying to do a very intelligent thing with your Intelligence 8 character, he just doesn't have your real life capablity.

[SharkForce]

this sounds like exactly the sort of thing the keen mind feat would help with in any event :)

but yeah, some sort of check to see if you remember all the information seems pretty reasonable to me. if you don't have some kind of unusually good ability to sense direction, i would expect to have a very hard time of it once it is mentioned that you're blindfolded though.

[Spore]

This is part weak DMing and part miscommunication. You can't just say: "I roll on Investigation." or "I will memorize that." and have it magically succeed. Same as your DM didnt handle that session continuation well.

In a perfect world it would have been handled like the following imho.

P: I want to memorize the path from the entrance to our cells. What do I roll for or is that easy enough to not warrant a roll.
DM: Well, the guards recognize you looking around very much after a few minutes so they put a sack on your head. So you can memorize a part of the dungeon in your head and then count steps from the point where you have been put on a hood. DC 15 Investigation check.
P: <rolls 20> Okay, nice.
DM: You recognize a pattern. I will update you on that.

Remember your DM is only human and can make mistakes or forget things as well.

[Bahamut7]

I would like to thank everyone for their responses, as I am always curious as to what other tables are.

It seems though some of your responses seem to be overlooking something that is probably where my disconnect is coming from. Common Sense. I wasn't asking for a detailed map of the "dungeon" (I know it's a generic word, but it just seems wrong in this case :smallconfused:). based on how our party was captured, conscientious, it didn't seem unreasonable to think a person in that situation wouldn't think, "Ok I went down about 20 steps, brought through a room where half the party was taken in a different direction, brought forward about 60 ft, turned left, 80 ft, turned right, 60 ft, turned right, thrown in jail cell on my left." Mind you, my cell partner and I found our way back quite easily and reunited with the group so it was a moot point.

This is why I stated in my original post that I would have preferred a general description of where I went like above. I wasn't going to abandon the rest of my group, and I do still want to fully explore the enemies base. As for him throwing in the sacks over the head, was probably not handled well as I had only wanted the info of the forces inside at a glance. Actually, I was fine with the retcon, well except the racial change to the enemies to justify no torches in an underground base (makes dynamic lighting more exciting) :smallwink:.

I do see now after reflection and responses that in this particular situation I feel like role playing was ignored for a chance at failure to something that should have been a given based on my choices, and this is the cause behind the rant portion.

As for the actual question, the responses further support session zero and understanding the DM's style better. I have dealt with similar situations in the past with this particular DM but it was little details that didn't matter, so I hadn't put the dots together.

Oh Trinculo, I wasn't saying that players should outright refuse skill or rolls, but that some situations they are not necessary as I believe in this case. I know that there is info not present to the players that the DM may be checking.

Thanks again for the replies.

[TrinculoLives]

I would like to thank everyone for their responses, as I am always curious as to what other tables are.

It seems though some of your responses seem to be overlooking something that is probably where my disconnect is coming from. Common Sense. I wasn't asking for a detailed map of the "dungeon" (I know it's a generic word, but it just seems wrong in this case :smallconfused:). based on how our party was captured, conscientious, it didn't seem unreasonable to think a person in that situation wouldn't think, "Ok I went down about 20 steps, brought through a room where half the party was taken in a different direction, brought forward about 60 ft, turned left, 80 ft, turned right, 60 ft, turned right, thrown in jail cell on my left." Mind you, my cell partner and I found our way back quite easily and reunited with the group so it was a moot point.

<snip>

I do see now after reflection and responses that in this particular situation I feel like role playing was ignored for a chance at failure to something that should have been a given based on my choices, and this is the cause behind the rant portion.

Hrm... Well, I see the same basic problem coming up here: you disagree with how the DM ran a part of the game.

This happens. Often! In the OotA thread a wizard player was complaining that his DM had hidden his character's spellbook away from the weapons belonging to his martial companions. "Why is the DM specifically punishing me?" He asked.

"Magical items are hidden in another room. It's specifically written that way in the adventure," was the response.

Perhaps you don't know the whole picture? Perhaps some aspect of the game's story was more important than allowing this Common Sense. Or perhaps you were thinking of one thing and your DM was thinking of another when it came to this example of Common Sense?

Part of playing a PC, and this is one of the reasons I can't stand playing PCs for too long, is that one just sort of has to accept whatever the DM throws one's way. One can't win arguments about whether the DM was right or wrong with a ruling; all one can do is accept it and stay quiet, air any serious grievances at the appropriate time, or quit the game.



Oh Trinculo, I wasn't saying that players should outright refuse skill or rolls, but that some situations they are not necessary as I believe in this case. I know that there is info not present to the players that the DM may be checking.

Thanks again for the replies.

You're welcome! :)

It sounds like refusing:
"At what point, do players say no to an unnecessary skill check for information that should be a given with the RP that acquired it?"

So, yeah, when a player no longer wishes to play with their DM, that's when you say no!

I mean, asking for clarification is fine in these situations. But we're specifically talking about when a player thinks that a DM is asking for unnecessary skill checks for information they are owed by the DM already. That sounds like a loaded situation that won't be resolved easily!

"Wouldn't I know this automatically because of X and Y?"

"No."

"Oh, okay."

Done!

[Orion3T]

At what point, do players say no to an unnecessary skill check for information that should be a given with the RP that acquired it?

Good RP isn't a silver bullet. If it were, then a player with good social skills (a good RPer who makes strong arguments and is good at RPing an angry dwarf, for example) would never need to bother with the social skills on their character.

It doesn't matter if I as a player make the soundest most persuasive argument my DM has ever heard. If my PC has a Charisma (Persuasion) skill mod of -2 because he's a brutish unlikeable half-ord then the DM is within their rights to call for a check.

The good RP should earn you something though - Advantage or Inspiration. If you fail, it's because they failed to convince the target the argument was sound.

I'm not saying that's the only way, but it's certainly a valid way.

In your case, a check definitely seems warranted to make sure your PC doesn't forget or muddle the directions. That you gave a good description of your methodology (I'm keeping count of steps) might warrant advantage on the check, but it doesn't mean your 6 Int PC can keep count correctly.

Dice rolls are there to add the differences between what you want your character to do, and what they actually manage to achieve.

To allow the roll and then not give the information though? That's the bit I don't understand. If a DM is going to allow a check, they should allow the result to stand. So at this point, I'd agree with the earlier comment that the DM thought that knowing the route would spoil the session somewhat, and wanted to avoid it at all costs. That's not ideal on their part, but if you want them to DM in future you should be able to accept they won't always get it 'right'.

[LordVonDerp]

End of a previous session, my party and I get captured. We get a few role playing as we are being brought down into the enemies underground outpost. When asked what I am doing, I state that I am counting my steps and plotting out the layout in my mind from entrance to cell. Next session rolls around and I remind the DM I need a rough map of the outpost from the entrance to my jail cell or directions that will allow me to plot out my own makeshift map (would have preferred this).

Session starts I still don't have this and when I ask again, he begins to insist on a Dungeoneering check, after he retconed that we were brought in with sacks over our heads (after I requested how many doors I saw on the way to my cell). I kindly remind him there is no dungeoneering skill in 5e and that this information should not warrant a roll. He keeps insisting and forunately I get a 20 on my investigation check which gives me information about the stonework...:smallannoyed: I gave up on the information I should have had and dealt with it. The Rogue and I (Monk) broke out of our cell and proceeded to murderhobo our way out, find the other half of the party, and ended the session.
L

I don't see why you would need a check for any of this as it's pretty trivial stuff.

[Ruslan]

That said, personally I don't consider a DC 10 Intelligence check un-called for in this case. Because recalling things is explicitly what Intelligence is for, and building a mental map from remembered step counting sounds to me like something an untrained person would fail about 1/2 the time. If a player requested a proficiency bonus for it, I'd probably also allow Investigation to apply, since the 'build a mental map' part sounds pretty deductive. So Intelligence (Investigation) DC 10 check. If a player noted he'd specifically said he was counting steps in advance, indicating he was planning ahead, which is something I like to encourage, then I'd likely grant advantage.An excellent summary. I could get behind that.

Retconning the sacks over your heads was not cool, though.

[DireSickFish]

based on how our party was captured, conscientious, it didn't seem unreasonable to think a person in that situation wouldn't think, "Ok I went down about 20 steps, brought through a room where half the party was taken in a different direction, brought forward about 60 ft, turned left, 80 ft, turned right, 60 ft, turned right, thrown in jail cell on my left." Mind you, my cell partner and I found our way back quite easily and reunited with the group so it was a moot point.


That actually seems really hard to remember. Especially with the reconnected bags.

Was a roll here reasonable? Yes. Could the GM have handled it better? Yes. Was there some miscommunication? Probably.

An investigation check if you were just rolling it would give you info about the room and the stonework. Seems the DM was responding to that instead of what you were -actually- trying to do, ie remember the way out. So that seems to be a flub on the DMs part.

Seems like a minor thing overlooked. Sometimes a DM just can't respond as he should in the moment.

As far as the bags on head is concerned. I've had players roll back actions, and let them, because they were missing a piece of information hat would have made the action dumb. If you start moving the goalposts every time the player or DM come sup with a countermeasure or hole it becomes a un-fun game of back and forth. But every now and then I think it's alright to roll back an action if you spot a glaring flaw.

While in this situation I don't think letting the players see the layout or know it would have ruined everything. I'm not the DM so have no idea what he was planning.

If stuff like this is happening all the time then it might be time to consider bigger steps. You could let the GM know later on what he did felt like some Bull****.

[Tanarii]

An investigation check if you were just rolling it would give you info about the room and the stonework. Seems the DM was responding to that instead of what you were -actually- trying to do, ie remember the way out. So that seems to be a flub on the DMs part.

Seems like a minor thing overlooked. Sometimes a DM just can't respond as he should in the moment.The issue here is that it's the most important thing a DM does. Adjudicate player actions accurately, having outcomes and consequences be reasonable considering intent and approach. of course, a player communicating intent and approach in a way that makes that possible is important. And no one is perfect, especially in the chaos of trying to keep the pace of the game going and dealing with multiple players stating their actions at once and trying to keep track of what's going on with the entire scenario and all the creatures in it and and and ... :smallamused:

[Crusher]

End of a previous session, my party and I get captured. We get a few role playing as we are being brought down into the enemies underground outpost. When asked what I am doing, I state that I am counting my steps and plotting out the layout in my mind from entrance to cell. Next session rolls around and I remind the DM I need a rough map of the outpost from the entrance to my jail cell or directions that will allow me to plot out my own makeshift map (would have preferred this).

Session starts I still don't have this and when I ask again, he begins to insist on a Dungeoneering check, after he retconed that we were brought in with sacks over our heads (after I requested how many doors I saw on the way to my cell). I kindly remind him there is no dungeoneering skill in 5e and that this information should not warrant a roll. He keeps insisting and forunately I get a 20 on my investigation check which gives me information about the stonework...:smallannoyed: I gave up on the information I should have had and dealt with it. The Rogue and I (Monk) broke out of our cell and proceeded to murderhobo our way out, find the other half of the party, and ended the session.

While this is a partial rant, I do have a legit question. At what point, do players say no to an unnecessary skill check for information that should be a given with the RP that acquired it? Though I gave in, should I have not? Or was my resistance to a roll wrong on my part?

Hrm. I can see this going either way. On the one hand, you should indeed be rewarded for having the foresight to try and count steps and whatnot, and it sounds like you eventually were. On the other hand, I think a roll would absolutely be warranted. Just because you want your character to do something doesn't mean they're automatically able to do it. That's obvious with physical stuff ("My character climbs the 50' high sheer wall!") but also with mental stuff.

Just because the Outlander Barbarian with an 8 INT *wants* to quickly skim through the enemy Wizard's diary looking for important information doesn't mean they're equipped to actually do it. Similarly, a Rogue would probably be all over counting steps, but a Monk (particularly depending on background) might not be. Plus, if you happened to make INT your dump stat, your character might in fact be quite bad at the kind of thing you're asking to do, making a roll entirely appropriate, even without sacks over your heads.

[Honest Tiefling]

Considering the retcon, I think the DM just panicked. I think he had the idea of an epic and tense break out that required a bit of confusion and sorta...Fumbled. Many DMs, even more experienced ones, can get flustered if their plans are upset. I would also suspect that the bag retcon might have been because he needed to redo or to locate an appropriate map for the prison. But that's just my impression.

As for what I would do, I would probably require a Wisdom (Perception) check, since its done pretty fast and relies heavily on perceiving the world around you. I honestly wouldn't really see a highly intelligent but low wisdom character succeeding on being able to quickly notice such things, even if memory is traditionally associated with Intelligence. Since multiple characters are involved, I would probably leave the actual mapping out of the place to wisdom, but maybe toss in some goodies for an Intelligence (Investigation) check, such as a guard not sleeping well, or a possible sign of hasty repairs or what have you. So one character has a better idea of the map, but the other one can help with important tidbits of information for a better plan.

However, I'd probably also ask for some bluff checks to hide it. Guards aren't known for liking curious prisoners, after all, and I would think looking around oneself at the environment would be quite obvious unless trained.

[Hrugner]

As for what I'd do.

As a player: "I'd like to memorize the path their taking us on, do I need to make a survival or investigation check here?" this is the part where I'm making the action I'll be relying on later, so I'd bring up the roll if I wasn't certain about the results. I may also ask if feats or backgrounds mattered such as the outlander's map memorization or the keen mind feat since I don't expect my DM to memorize my character sheet.

As a DM: You said you wanted to memorize the path, I'd let you remember it for a few hours without rolling provided you weren't treated too harshly in the interim. If I planned on torture or an extended stay I'd call for the roll and mark it down somewhere in my notes for when you escaped. I'd give you your choice of survival or investigation. If I needed you not to know where you were, I'd have your prison food drugged and move you in your sleep.

As for what happened, I guess I'd do just what you did. Roll with it. If you want your character to be able to be able to remember paths like that in the future, you should ask your DM what sort of skills or feats would help with that.

[Temperjoke]

I'm not found of retcons, except in situations that were clearly a mistake on the DM's part (such as forgetting to mention the enemy in the room).

Honestly though, a basic check to see how accurate your memory in this circumstance is correct, in my opinion. I mean, I consider myself decently observant, but what you rattled off in terms of turns and step counts, I wouldn't be able to keep track, I'd get confused at whether I turned right or left. I'm sure others would be able to keep track with no problem, but that's where proficiency comes in, or any applicable feats, making it easier for a character to make the DC.

[Bahamut7]

Wow, so many new and diverse responses. After reading through them, there are a few points that would warrant a roll more than other situations. If I was playing a low Int character, I would expect such a roll (my Monk is a failed wizard with an INT of 12 so not a problem here).

Miscommunication? Absolutely, hindsight screams that he clearly did not know what I was asking for and instead of stopping to clarify looked for the nearest roll option he could find. I gave up because it was as someone put correctly, trivial. Was it necessary? No, as the session led to. In fact, he had to spawn new enemies to throw against the Rogue and I to slow us down as we were tearing through the enemies while Fighter and Wizard were dealing with low rolls.

As for RP vs a skill check. Depending on the situation and stats of the character(s) involved, a roll may be necessary or highly encouraged. I still feel that the information I was trying to gather with a higher than commoner INT and High WIS should have been a given as it was equivalent to a description of a room. You don't ask a player to roll to see what they see in a bright, un-obscured room after all. The DM should be providing that for general things. Sure a Perception, or investigation roll may gleam further information or secrets, but how many walls, the shape of the room, objects, construction, etc should be a given.

The biggest problem was from the fact that the info my character gathered was at the end of a previous session and the dungeon in question was created an hour before this session.

While I encourage any further discussion, I hope that this thread provides insight to DMs and players alike. Always look look over how much is game mechanics as opposed to Fluff. A similar issue that could be like this is encumbrance. Mechanically D&D treats this like Skyrim. In truth, most humanoids can carry far more weight when distributed correctly as oppose to a sack on your back. :smallbiggrin:

I will of course check in and respond to further discussion as I can. Thanks again.

[Corsair14]

The retcon on the bag on the head is a mis tell on his part. It happens. As for the map you should have been drawing your own map. In my dungeon maps I have the party make its own so it knows how to get out. I have been in places where I have gotten lost so I dont see a problem with PCs getting lost. Rolling Int at a DC relative to how confusing the layout is, is certainly not out of line.

[Bahamut7]

The retcon on the bag on the head is a mis tell on his part. It happens. As for the map you should have been drawing your own map.

I would have love to do this, but he didn't have the layout ready until the following week. "You are captured, what do you do?" [players respond] "Ok, we will pick up next week."

[BillyBobShorton]

Without the usual "DM can do whatever he wants, so you're probably wrong, deal with it" schtick, sounds to me like a DM who doesn't adapt well when players do something he didn't expect.

He likely had some escape from my super hard dungeon quest in mind and overlooked the age old "learn my way out by seeing how I came in" technique, which was a smart move on your part.

So rather than have you make occasional perception or invenstigation rolls as you were dragged into the captivity hold to determine your aptitude for trackingmemory, like he should have done, he just went back in time and made up a new way to prevent your (easier than he wants it to be) eventual escape by stating something that didn't happen.

Me, had I overlooked it and realized it was MY mistake by allowing you to (at least partially) memorize the route, and I still wanted the whole "escape from unknown place dungeon" thing to happen, I would have simply blocked a route and forced the party to still FIND a way out.

He did not do that, nor does he apparently have that kind of quick-fix thinking on his feet. Which is not something everyone possesses-understandable.

BUUUT, he changed what happened and denied you a solid role, which takes away free will, putting himself and his own enjoyment in front of the table's enjoyment and party accomplishments. He basically ignored you and tried to play it off like he had it all figured out with a thinly disguised piece of scotch tape over pond-sized hole.

Which, IMO, = sh*tty DM.

I would have given you inspiration for your plan and then rolling a 20. You aced it, he crapped on it with a 3 of clubs. Not your fault, dude. Some DM's just... think the chair means power, and that kind of thinking usually ruins the game. It's supposed to be fun & challenging, not something that makes you question whether someone is an assh*le or not.

[Saiga]

It's also worth noting that a natural 20 doesn't mean an automatic success on a skill check. DCs can go higher, and in this circumstance I can see the DC easily being above a 20. If the total falls below the DC, the DM can choose for it not to succeed or to succeed with a complication.

The answer he gaves seem silly, but not much different to saying "you were unable to retrace your steps in this situation" which would be totally fair.

Edit: re-reading it appears to be a 20 total investigation check, so yes, that fails any DC 25 or higher check.

[Xrposiedon]

I am going to go on the side of --- I think your DM is correct to make you roll

Think about it this way...If I put a bag over your head, walked you around a building, and then sat you down for a few hours in an uncomfortable position, all while not knowing if you were going to live or die....

It is going to take a lot...and I mean A LOT of concentration to even recall your steps, let alone an accurate layout. Hell even a rough layout. This is the type of stuff that trained spelunkers have issues doing when mapping caves by hand.


TLDR Version

1. You stated that you are doing an action, but that doesn't dictate the result.
2. You cant just say you are performing steps towards an action and have it be a success in ANY sense.
3. Remembering steps / layout, During a stressful situation is VERY HARD
4. DM is correct on making you roll.

[Lombra]

Retcon aside (with which I would just deal, it's hard to DM and some retroactivity helps a lot) I think that the intelligence check to remember the steps is reasonable, and depending on the place I can see it being even CD 25 if the outpost is large and complicated. Although the information that you gained from that 20 seems kinda lame, I would have revealed the number of turns at least.

[LordVonDerp]

Think about it this way...If I put a bag over your head, walked you around a building, and then sat you down for a few hours in an uncomfortable position, all while not knowing if you were going to live or die....
I'd have an easy time navigating out because I don't have a terrible sense of direction.




It is going to take a lot...and I mean A LOT of concentration to even recall your steps, let alone an accurate layout. Hell even a rough layout. This is the type of stuff that trained spelunkers have issues doing when mapping caves by hand.
Why would it be difficult? We're talking about navigating through a man-made structure.




3. Remembering steps / layout, During a stressful situation is VERY HARD

No, it's really not.




4. DM is correct on making you roll.

It might have been appropriate to roll to see how detailed of a map he got, but that's it.

[SharkForce]

I'd have an easy time navigating out because I don't have a terrible sense of direction.



Why would it be difficult? We're talking about navigating through a man-made structure.



No, it's really not.




It might have been appropriate to roll to see how detailed of a map he got, but that's it.

for most people, if you close your eyes and start walking in what you think is a straight line, you will curve. if you ask them to memorize perfectly a bunch of numbers while continuously updating those numbers, they will struggle.

a roll is very reasonable. now, in this case, the roll was a 20, and i don't think the task should have been impossible for an average intelligence person, so i would have ruled that they got it right (though i don't think i would have investigation proficiency apply... it's counting and memorizing, you aren't doing a lot of investigating here). i'm not *exactly* certain what the DC should be... DC 10 and 15 feel a bit too low to me, but setting a DC of 20 feels excessive. i might just default to 15 even though it feels too low (i don't think the average person would succeed 75% of the time in a task like this) simply because the PCs are supposed to be larger-than-life. i suspect a more accurate DC would be something like 18 or 19, but wouldn't want to spend too much time figuring out the exact right number in the middle of a game session :P

[Pex]

It's also worth noting that a natural 20 doesn't mean an automatic success on a skill check. DCs can go higher, and in this circumstance I can see the DC easily being above a 20. If the total falls below the DC, the DM can choose for it not to succeed or to succeed with a complication.

The answer he gaves seem silly, but not much different to saying "you were unable to retrace your steps in this situation" which would be totally fair.

Edit: re-reading it appears to be a 20 total investigation check, so yes, that fails any DC 25 or higher check.

In other words, it's DC No, nuh-uh, you're staying on my train tracks. Yes, there can be instances that are legitimately DC 25+, but it should be because the task is Honest True that difficult and not because the DM erred/the player outsmarted him.

I can understand the DM still wanting the Escape Adventure to happen. He could have had that and included the player's ingenuity. There could have been an arbitrary point where a bad guy notices what the PC is doing. He would knock the PC out at that point. The Escape Adventure is then slightly altered in the PCs favor. Instead of the goal of reaching the exit, the goal is reaching that arbitrary point. The party escapes say an in game hour sooner which disrupts the BBEG plans. Maybe something else, but anything other than here's the choo-choo.

Of course this doesn't mean the DM is horrible, a tyrant, or other negative connotation. It could be a mistake on his part he would hopefully learn from to improve. It's something the player can talk to the DM about not during a game session and after the current adventure arc is done.

[Tanarii]

(though i don't think i would have investigation proficiency apply... it's counting and memorizing, you aren't doing a lot of investigating here)Investigation covers deductive thinking and putting something together from a series of pieces of information. Sounds like constructing a mental map from step counts and turns counts to me.

----------------------------------------------------
(general comment)

I'll qualify my original DC 10: I tend to set D&D 5e DCs on the hollywood or rule-of-cool scale. In other words, low. Because people often think they can do things based on what they've read or seen in movies. This results in a Dunning–Kruger-like effect. If I was setting it based on a guy-at-the-gym or gritty-reality scale I'd probably rule it almost impossible for an 'untrained person', and unlikely for a 'trained' person. Ie Intelligence DC 20 or so for all except the simplest of layouts, higher for any very large or complex area. But I'd still let still let Investigation apply, and probably advantage if someone explicitly told me they were doing it as it happened.

Edit:

In other words, it's DC No, nuh-uh, you're staying on my train tracks. Yes, there can be instances that are legitimately DC 25+, but it should be because the task is Honest True that difficult and not because the DM erred/the player outsmarted him.DC 25 effectively means "not possible for the average person, possible for a person with exceptional training (nat ability score and/or proficiency) given enough time with no significant cost for failure". Personally I agree it's too high, even under a 'guy-at-the-gym' ruling, unless the area is especially large or complex.


Of course this doesn't mean the DM is horrible, a tyrant, or other negative connotation. It could be a mistake on his part he would hopefully learn from to improve. It's something the player can talk to the DM about not during a game session and after the current adventure arc is done.Personally I can't stand the term 'Bad DM' or variations on it. I find that generally speaking, it's use says far worse things about the person using the term than the DM it's being applied to.

[SharkForce]

Investigation covers deductive thinking and putting something together from a series of pieces of information. Sounds like constructing a mental map from step counts and turns counts to me.

not much of a map. just a collection of distances that form a single path. you're not really manipulating them in any way, you're just putting them one after the other. if you found a collection of such paths, and were trying to figure out where they all cross so you could form them into a map, sure. but with just counting and memorizing, you're not really processing the information into anything else, you're just counting and memorizing. counting shouldn't require a check, and memorizing (or rather, remembering) is just a straight intelligence check.

i wouldn't say it's impossible to have proficiency on the check, but i don't think investigation is the way to get proficiency on the check.

[Biggstick]

I can understand the DM still wanting the Escape Adventure to happen. He could have had that and included the player's ingenuity. There could have been an arbitrary point where a bad guy notices what the PC is doing. He would knock the PC out at that point. The Escape Adventure is then slightly altered in the PCs favor. Instead of the goal of reaching the exit, the goal is reaching that arbitrary point. The party escapes say an in game hour sooner which disrupts the BBEG plans. Maybe something else, but anything other than here's the choo-choo.

The bolded part is what I'd draw attention to. From being in the military myself, I can give you an idea of how POW's are handled. There is a bag placed over their head. If for some reason, one is found to not have a bag over their head, one is put on it. Once the bag is on the head, the POW's are walked around for at least 30-60 minutes, maybe even longer. They might walk past the place they're going to be held multiple times, but aren't actually placed yet. The POW's are walked around in this way to prevent the exact tactic you're trying to suggest the PC uses. If the DM's guards are any sort of competent, they're using a similar strategy as most military's around the world utilize when dealing with POW's.

[JNAProductions]

I think we can say this:

A check was reasonable to be called for. The exact DC is up for debate, and regardless, there should be degrees of success, but calling for a check is not bad DMing.
The DM was not especially good to retcon bags over their heads, but that's not terrible-it's a bit rude and a sign that they need more experience (or need to just get a bit better if they are experienced) but it's a minor error, and something that should be forgiven.

[LordCdrMilitant]

I'd say unreasonable request. Being able to precicesly retrace your path through an unfamiliar area is a fairly extraordinary ability, so I'd probably all for an investigate roll, around DC15-25, and give varying degrees f accuracy based on degrees of success/failure.

Reconning bags onto your heads is definitely not good practice, though.

[lperkins2]

It's actually not that difficult a thing to do, except for remembering the distances. The way I'd run it as an Int check at every intersection. The DC would probably start at 5 and go up for each intersection passed, modified by anything unusual to make the location stand out (checkpoint, statue, kitchens). If the path taken has more than half a dozen turns or so, it would become very difficult to get each of them right, but you could still cut down your time taken somewhat.

As for why the DM acted like he did, you mention Roll20. He probably wasn't taking advantage of the DM layer on the map for storing everything, and didn't want to reveal the map to you in advance, as it would spoiler all the guards and stuff along the way too.

[Bahamut7]

The bolded part is what I'd draw attention to. From being in the military myself, I can give you an idea of how POW's are handled. There is a bag placed over their head. If for some reason, one is found to not have a bag over their head, one is put on it. Once the bag is on the head, the POW's are walked around for at least 30-60 minutes, maybe even longer. They might walk past the place they're going to be held multiple times, but aren't actually placed yet. The POW's are walked around in this way to prevent the exact tactic you're trying to suggest the PC uses. If the DM's guards are any sort of competent, they're using a similar strategy as most military's around the world utilize when dealing with POW's.

And this would have been fine with me if the bags over the head had been done originally. In fact, I would have applauded the DM for such details.


It's actually not that difficult a thing to do, except for remembering the distances. The way I'd run it as an Int check at every intersection. The DC would probably start at 5 and go up for each intersection passed, modified by anything unusual to make the location stand out (checkpoint, statue, kitchens). If the path taken has more than half a dozen turns or so, it would become very difficult to get each of them right, but you could still cut down your time taken somewhat.

As for why the DM acted like he did, you mention Roll20. He probably wasn't taking advantage of the DM layer on the map for storing everything, and didn't want to reveal the map to you in advance, as it would spoiler all the guards and stuff along the way too.

Once again, another response that I would have been glad to accept, especially if the complex was larger (he actually showed me the whole map after the session, we're roommates). The method of rolling to see how accurately of a path I remember would have made it more exciting.

As for revealing the whole map, I agree he didn't want to and I didn't want to see it beforehand. What I had asked for was a rough and general description of the path I traveled so I could plot out my own map. I am a big fan of Fog of War and original Legend of Zelda dungeon maps that you plot before you find the actual map. Atlas, this was a missed opportunity, hopefully if the situation arises again it will be more enjoyable.

[Tanarii]

It's actually not that difficult a thing to do, except for remembering the distances. The way I'd run it as an Int check at every intersection. Unless you're counting steps, actually determining distances/heights by eyeballing them is very difficult. Even step counting is notoriously inaccurate. I once saw a dozen Boy Scouts get completely lost on a step-counting-to-navigate thing done in the desert. They had to do it individually, none succeeded. Turned out that was the point of the exercise.

[Biggstick]

Unless you're counting steps, actually determining distances/heights by eyeballing them is very difficult. Even step counting is notoriously inaccurate. I once saw a dozen Boy Scouts get completely lost on a step-counting-to-navigate thing done in the desert. They had to do it individually, none succeeded. Turned out that was the point of the exercise.

Yeah, this is something I agree with completely.

You're not going to be "easily" able to do this thing. Not even "mediumly." This is going to be something that is pretty difficult to do.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Unreasonable request. Deserving of a high roll. A lot of things might change that, however:

- Is your character a savant? (Worth a good bonus on the Int check, makes it more believable.)
- Does your character have Keen Mind? (I'd likely just give the info for this, as it's what the feat is more or less designed to do.)
- Is your character excellent at Investigation or Stonecunning (Dwarf)?
There are a lot of things that affect the ability to make accurate predictions based off this information. You're expecting your character to have accurately remembered a complex number and direction sequence based off step-counting under duress and with sensory information concealed (granted, the bag retcon is the DM's issue), which also implies that you were able to control and measure step length in a meaningful fashion during a forced march, and also, to use this information, you'd need to recall it in backwards order and reversed.

Bear in mind that you were asking for a concrete layout of the dungeon map (an objective, visible memento) based on information that was both subjective and non-visual. If I was your DM and you made the check, I'd relay to you a step count (something like "37, right; 15, left; down 12 stairs; 6, left; 70, right; 41, left; 6), then forbid you from writing or recording the information, or conveying it to the party out-of-character, but otherwise allow its use.

It's an accepted roleplaying trope and not impossible to do, but to assume it would be automatic or even have a likely chance of success is unreasonable.

[Tanarii]

Yeah, this is something I agree with completely.

You're not going to be "easily" able to do this thing. Not even "mediumly." This is going to be something that is pretty difficult to do.
But to be clear, I'd still probably rule it DC 10, DC 15 at most in a game. I've been intentionally working to keep my ad-hoc DCs low(ish) for the most part, since I often do call for unmodified ability checks, as intended by the rules. And I try not to raise them just because a proficiency can apply. That gives all characters a chance to succeed at non-pre-planned tasks and thinking outside the box, unless they're obviously ridiculous.

Pre-planned challenges are often considerably higher of course, since they're supposed to be the meat of the scenario.

[Pex]

The bolded part is what I'd draw attention to. From being in the military myself, I can give you an idea of how POW's are handled. There is a bag placed over their head. If for some reason, one is found to not have a bag over their head, one is put on it. Once the bag is on the head, the POW's are walked around for at least 30-60 minutes, maybe even longer. They might walk past the place they're going to be held multiple times, but aren't actually placed yet. The POW's are walked around in this way to prevent the exact tactic you're trying to suggest the PC uses. If the DM's guards are any sort of competent, they're using a similar strategy as most military's around the world utilize when dealing with POW's.

But they weren't that competent as shown by the DM retconning the bag over their heads after the PC was trying to remember the path taken. The DM hadn't thought of that. The player shouldn't have been punished for it.

[CaptainSarathai]

Now, since you got a nat 20, you should DEFINITELY remember it, but I think your DM was pretty reasonable in calling for a check here.
Firstly, remember that a Nat20 does not auto-succeed on Skill Checks. This is something that I really like about 5e (first edition I noticed this, at least). There is actually a DC for "impossible" and it's a DC30, according to the DMG. There are actually ways to HIT a 30 on a skill check, in fact, the highest result you can roll at L20 is actually a 32 IIRC (+5 for Ability, +6 for Proficiency, doubled for Expertise).



It seems though some of your responses seem to be overlooking something that is probably where my disconnect is coming from. Common Sense. [SPOILER= SNIP]I wasn't asking for a detailed map of the "dungeon" (I know it's a generic word, but it just seems wrong in this case :smallconfused:). based on how our party was captured, conscientious, it didn't seem unreasonable to think a person in that situation wouldn't think, "Ok I went down about 20 steps, brought through a room where half the party was taken in a different direction, brought forward about 60 ft, turned left, 80 ft, turned right, 60 ft, turned right, thrown in jail cell on my left." [/SNIP]
Common sense, yes. But finding your way like that is not easy at all. I took a wilderness orienteering course as part of a summer camp, and we were given an accurate map of a location, told where we would start, and where we were expected to finish. We had to plot a course between the two. Then, we were dropped in the woods alone with only a compass and no maps, and told to get working.
Only about half of us came out at the right spot. Two guys got so horribly lost that we had to go find them, and another missed the rendezvous by nearly 2 miles.
Counting footsteps works if you can quickly remember a series of numbers.
"That's 80 steps. Remember, 80. Now 1, 2, 3..."
Measuring distance by steps or time is even harder. Most people never measure their stride. Then, when you DO, you probably do it in good conditions. Then you get "in the world" and have to maintain that measured stride, even over broken ground. While counting. And doing math to work out how far you've gone.
And that's under the "best" dungeon conditions. If someone were doing this in my dungeon, I'd call for Concentration checks, because:
"So, was that 39 steps, or 49 steps before that trap shot an arrow through your shoulder?"
"I don't know! I kinda lost count when they shot me!"
And again, this is also assuming you were under the best conditions when gathering your intel. Guards don't want that. Seriously, your character is already under stress because he's been captured and is possibly facing enslavement or execution - he's already working to keep a level head. Add to that, the guards. The DM retconned that they hooded you, which really is just kinda common sense for intelligent creatures. If they that smart though, chances are also good that they're not gonna let you take even, measuring, unhassled steps through the dungeon. No, they're gonna be shoving you, dragging you, kicking you down, etc. They do this not just for cruelty's sake, but also just to prevent you from doing exactly what your character was trying to do[I].


Good RP isn't a silver bullet. If it were, then a player with good social skills (a good RPer who makes strong arguments and is good at RPing an angry dwarf, for example) would never need to bother with the social skills on their character.
Amen to that. And that also sort of goes here, as well. If your character is a big dumb brute, would it have occurred to him to count his steps at all?
It could almost border on metagaming.
DM: "I need your watch order, and everyone's passive Perception"
Player: "I'm sleeping in my armor!"
DM: "Why are you sleeping in armor? You never did that before."
Player: "Well, my character, [I]Hahn Soulo, has a bad feeling about this part of the forest tonight"
--Bull$***t

I'm not accusing OP of this, but it would make sense for the DM to consider that angle.


Hrm. I can see this going either way. On the one hand, you should indeed be rewarded for having the foresight to try and count steps and whatnot, and it sounds like you eventually were. On the other hand, I think a roll would absolutely be warranted.
Advantage for good RP of counting steps: You get to roll for this at all.

If a PC hadn't said that they were actively attempting to remember their way out, any attempt to recall the proper path would have been met with evil laughter from behind the screen (or a seriously high DC check).
---

How I would handle this as a DM:

1. You tell me that you want to count steps.
This must happen for this entire argument to even be valid.

2. We begin a series of skill checks wherein you must do 2 things. First, you must maintain Concentration, as if concentrating on a spell. Secondly, every time we get to a fork or notable change, you must pass a DC10 Int(Investigate) check. If you fail the Con check, you automatically fail this check. If you had to roll a Con check at all, the Int check DC is +5. If you failed the previous Int check, also +5. These stack.

3. I the DM, make your map. To prevent metagaming, I ask for checks blind. I don't say for example, "you feel the splash of a cold stream, roll Con or roll Int"
Because then, the player knows they should find a stream, even if their character doesn't.

4. On exit, we do the opposite: you maintain Concentration, and every time we get to a feature, you roll Investigate to recall it. DC is determined exactly as it was on the way in.

If you failed a check on the way in, your recall automatically fails, and I perhaps even misdirect you depending on how badly you failed.

Essentially, if it's 6 direction changes on the way in, it's 6 Investigate on the way out.

[Bahamut7]

Firstly, remember that a Nat20 does not auto-succeed on Skill Checks.


"That's 80 steps. Remember, 80. Now 1, 2, 3..."
Measuring distance by steps or time is even harder. Most people never measure their stride. Then, when you DO, you probably do it in good conditions. Then you get "in the world" and have to maintain that measured stride, even over broken ground. While counting. And doing math to work out how far you've gone.
And that's under the "best" dungeon conditions. If someone were doing this in my dungeon, I'd call for Concentration checks, because:
"So, was that 39 steps, or 49 steps before that trap shot an arrow through your shoulder?"
"I don't know! I kinda lost count when they shot me!"
And again, this is also assuming you were under the best conditions when gathering your intel. Guards don't want that. Seriously, your character is already under stress because he's been captured and is possibly facing enslavement or execution - he's already working to keep a level head. Add to that, the guards. The DM retconned that they hooded you, which really is just kinda common sense for intelligent creatures. If they that smart though, chances are also good that they're not gonna let you take even, measuring, unhassled steps through the dungeon. No, they're gonna be shoving you, dragging you, kicking you down, etc. They do this not just for cruelty's sake, but also just to prevent you from doing exactly what your character was trying to do[I].


Advantage for good RP of counting steps: You get to roll for this [I]at all.

If a PC hadn't said that they were actively attempting to remember their way out, any attempt to recall the proper path would have been met with evil laughter from behind the screen (or a seriously high DC check).
---

How I would handle this as a DM:

1. You tell me that you want to count steps.
This must happen for this entire argument to even be valid.

2. We begin a series of skill checks wherein you must do 2 things. First, you must maintain Concentration, as if concentrating on a spell. Secondly, every time we get to a fork or notable change, you must pass a DC10 Int(Investigate) check. If you fail the Con check, you automatically fail this check. If you had to roll a Con check at all, the Int check DC is +5. If you failed the previous Int check, also +5. These stack.

3. I the DM, make your map. To prevent metagaming, I ask for checks blind. I don't say for example, "you feel the splash of a cold stream, roll Con or roll Int"
Because then, the player knows they should find a stream, even if their character doesn't.

4. On exit, we do the opposite: you maintain Concentration, and every time we get to a feature, you roll Investigate to recall it. DC is determined exactly as it was on the way in.

If you failed a check on the way in, your recall automatically fails, and I perhaps even misdirect you depending on how badly you failed.

Essentially, if it's 6 direction changes on the way in, it's 6 Investigate on the way out.

And as a player, I would have been fine with this. This could have happened if the Rp and skill check didn't happen in two different sessions. Your initial point about the guards disorienting their prisoners would have been great except the retcon happened after the fact.

When I requested the information, it was based on a peaceful surrender and being brought to cells, disarmed of course. The environment and variables changed when I requested the information I thought I had gathered for the party. Even with the sacks being retconned, nothing else was changed, so I had assumed based on the new information given that we still had a forced march to our cells.

Hell now that I think about it, he also retconned we were stripped down to loin cloths after I gave up on the intel, which I didn't mention prior as it wasn't necessary for the question and we found our gear a short distance from our cells.

I am glad to see responses that are on both sides of the spectrum and some that have offered better ways to go about any situation similar to this.

[pwykersotz]

How I would handle this as a DM:

1. You tell me that you want to count steps.
This must happen for this entire argument to even be valid.

2. We begin a series of skill checks wherein you must do 2 things. First, you must maintain Concentration, as if concentrating on a spell. Secondly, every time we get to a fork or notable change, you must pass a DC10 Int(Investigate) check. If you fail the Con check, you automatically fail this check. If you had to roll a Con check at all, the Int check DC is +5. If you failed the previous Int check, also +5. These stack.

3. I the DM, make your map. To prevent metagaming, I ask for checks blind. I don't say for example, "you feel the splash of a cold stream, roll Con or roll Int"
Because then, the player knows they should find a stream, even if their character doesn't.

4. On exit, we do the opposite: you maintain Concentration, and every time we get to a feature, you roll Investigate to recall it. DC is determined exactly as it was on the way in.

If you failed a check on the way in, your recall automatically fails, and I perhaps even misdirect you depending on how badly you failed.

Essentially, if it's 6 direction changes on the way in, it's 6 Investigate on the way out.

Wow, that's brutal. And kind of complicated. With so many points of failure, are you imagining an interesting cost besides just being lost? Maybe one that scales with how well they otherwise do? Because otherwise I'm not sure I see the point over a single higher roll.

[Asmotherion]

Actually both. It's quite obvious that he invented the "hood" thing on the spot, as he probably was too bored to bother drawing a map or something.

However, a DM is the ultimate god of his universe. If that universe sucks, joke's on him, as players will loose interest in said universe and ultimatelly, he will only have a universe of NPCs... at this point he might as well wright some fan-fiction.

You were wrong in opposing him mid-game. The right way to react (after you kindly riminded him that there is no dungeoniring in 5e) would be to just go with whatever nonsence he was babling about, not to break character and keep playing as long as you did not completely loose interest in the scenario. On the other hand, if you did loose interest, just state that you wish to leve your character as an NPC, and depart from the game. There is no worst waste of time than to steal valuable time from the session to argue rules. And most of all, it's anoying to the other members of the party, who might still enjoy the session.

If an out of game arguement occures, discuss it after-session. A DM might be a god in his universe, but in ours aka real life, he's still just human. Mistakes can happen, and a good DM always recompencetes somehow a player that was wronged by an in-game mistake.

[lperkins2]

Unless you're counting steps, actually determining distances/heights by eyeballing them is very difficult. Even step counting is notoriously inaccurate. I once saw a dozen Boy Scouts get completely lost on a step-counting-to-navigate thing done in the desert. They had to do it individually, none succeeded. Turned out that was the point of the exercise.

Eyeballing distances is something that takes a lot of practice, which pretty much nobody these days gets. It also isn't something that can be done at a glance, or while trying to avoid guards noticing you looking around. Counting steps is very accurate, if you practice keeping your stride consistent, even on rough terrain. The problem is you don't naturally have an even stride on flat terrain, let alone on rough terrain, so it is something you have to practice. When I was regularly winning orienteering competitions, I could pace off a mile within 5%. It was scrubland instead of desert, but that doesn't make much of a difference.

In most cases, the distance doesn't even matter. Unless you are planning to try to dig your way out, the unweighted graph of the intersections is still enough to get you a fast way out. If you have accurate distances, you might be able to guess about shortcuts, but you don't know if they actually go through, so it's unlikely to be worth it. Without the distances, you can still retrace your steps.