PDA

View Full Version : Killer obstructive DM, nintendo hard games, and shift in gamer culture



Pages : [1] 2

King of Nowhere
2020-04-30, 09:50 AM
We all heard horror DM tales. games where you don't get any loot, and most smart solution are vetoed. games where you can get a negative debuff that willl never get away, as you won't have the magic to heal it. games where your character can die for a critical fumble. and we wonder why the players put up with them.

then i was browsing tvtropes, and went to nintendo hard, and i realized that in the past, it was the norm for games to be much more brutal and unforgiving. it was pretty common that a single hit could kill you, that you would not be allowed to skip stuff by being clever, that you would not get any significant power-up through all the game.

So I'm thinking, maybe those bad DM and bad games aren't exactly bad per se, but they are rather a leftover after a shift in gamer culture. And perhaps the people in those games - even those people who feel miserable - think that it should be normal for a game to make you miserable unless you are an absolute pro, because it was the norm.

which, by the way, was probably a result of games being, by necessity, much simpler at the time. so the only way to make them challenging would be to have them being very unforgiving of small mistakes.

I'm wondering if a lot of bad games could be explained by a clash in gamer culture.

Anonymouswizard
2020-04-30, 10:37 AM
D&D, at least, began as 'dangerous dungeon delving' with an assumed ensemble cast (you'd pick a character from your collection who'd help make a balanced party) to the 'collaberative storytelling' with a more solid cat of characters model. The exact time was somewhere between 2e and 3e, the 2e DMG still treats characters moving between campaigns as a serious concern.

It also has a lot to do with presentation. Games where the life of an adventurer is treated as nasty, brutish, and short tend to cause less problems when ruin in such a manner compared to ones that focus on daring heroics, just due to setting the tone.

Creating a character in D&D specifically has also just gotten more and more complicated as time has gone on, which leeds to more investment in each individual character. 5e in some ways simplified characters and in other ways complicated it (such as the barely there 'roleplaying mechanics').

Outside of D&D, especially since about 2000, games focused more on story structure and character goals have become more common, some even restricting the kind of situations that can cause character death. This is a good thing, a game where characters can't die is and to focus on different things to one where death is an eternal presence.

And while I'd like to throw a ton of blame at Critical Role for promoting this style of gameplay, I actually think it being a common style of game affected how they presented the game rather than the other way around. So they get a free pass on this one.

Lvl 2 Expert
2020-04-30, 10:56 AM
which, by the way, was probably a result of games being, by necessity, much simpler at the time. so the only way to make them challenging would be to have them being very unforgiving of small mistakes.

Nintendo hard as I understand it (probably from TVTropes as well, although it's been a while) was a holdover from the arcade days. In an arcade game you play until you die. To make the most money off of these games the player had to die just as quickly as possibly, yet just slow enough that they didn't feel cheated and instead would want to try again. If it's possible for a really good player to play for much longer that's a plus, because people will see them play and figure that kind of fun is within their grasp, if only they line up their quarters and get practicing. Because arcade cabinets in the late 80's had the power to do stuff like primitive 3D games and home consoles and PC's did not, they were the best way to enjoy gaming, the pro scene of their time. Early 90's games simply inherited a whole bunch of industry standards and conventional wisdom from them. People come up with games based on which existing games are popular, and people buy games based on what they have played before. It takes time for everyone to realize things might be more fun if you handle them differently.

Imbalance
2020-04-30, 10:58 AM
I don't wanna go all "kids these days have it easy," but this has been my theory ever since I started tabletop RPG's. That's not to say I don't appreciate a softer difficulty in favor of more entertaining narrative - I tend to like both equally and enjoy a fluctuating spectrum over the course of a game - but I definitely played through a lot more difficult games back in the day than what currently influences gamer culture.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-04-30, 11:30 AM
A lot of it is generational. Remember that a lot of the people running DnD these days (and even some of the ones streaming it for others to see!) were born after 2E was dead and gone! I find this forum leans towards the older gamer, so seeing 2e and before style play discussed is more common than elsewhere.

Jorren
2020-04-30, 12:11 PM
I think that we shouldn't ignore the influence of Gygax himself, who basically pioneered the idea of 'hard mode', player vs DM, etc. Much of the tone in early D&D came from Gary's notion that victories should be earned, the DM should look for 'gotcha' opportunities when the players made a mistake, and that in general, the DM's role was to make life hard for the players.

Democratus
2020-04-30, 12:25 PM
I think that we shouldn't ignore the influence of Gygax himself, who basically pioneered the idea of 'hard mode', player vs DM, etc. Much of the tone in early D&D came from Gary's notion that victories should be earned, the DM should look for 'gotcha' opportunities when the players made a mistake, and that in general, the DM's role was to make life hard for the players.

Very true. The base assumption was that for each character you got to 5th level, about four to six others died along the way. You took very large parties into adventures, often with an even larger retinue of retainers and henchmen. Characters would die left and right to traps, monsters, misfortune, etc. - and the battered survivors who crawled back out into the sunlight were the lucky few.

Anonymouswizard
2020-04-30, 12:37 PM
A lot of it is generational. Remember that a lot of the people running DnD these days (and even some of the ones streaming it for others to see!) were born after 2E was dead and gone! I find this forum leans towards the older gamer, so seeing 2e and before style play discussed is more common than elsewhere.

Honestly I find the forum tends to lean towards 3.X, which had a philosophy actually closer to 2e than the later editions (while assumed to be less deadly PC death was treated as a fact).


I think that we shouldn't ignore the influence of Gygax himself, who basically pioneered the idea of 'hard mode', player vs DM, etc. Much of the tone in early D&D came from Gary's notion that victories should be earned, the DM should look for 'gotcha' opportunities when the players made a mistake, and that in general, the DM's role was to make life hard for the players.

I honestly think that 0e is best seen as being like HeroQuest (the Games Workshop one) than modern D&D. It was more of a wargame, on the one hand the players with their characters and henchmen, and on the other hand the DM with their hordes of evil, and the players won if they managed to come out of the dungeon with more coin than they went in with.

kyoryu
2020-04-30, 12:45 PM
D&D, at least, began as 'dangerous dungeon delving' with an assumed ensemble cast (you'd pick a character from your collection who'd help make a balanced party) to the 'collaberative storytelling' with a more solid cat of characters model. The exact time was somewhere between 2e and 3e, the 2e DMG still treats characters moving between campaigns as a serious concern.

Really the shift was DragonLance. 2e also ditched xp for gp, which was a major shift in how the game was played (okay, it was kept as an optional rule).


Creating a character in D&D specifically has also just gotten more and more complicated as time has gone on, which leeds to more investment in each individual character. 5e in some ways simplified characters and in other ways complicated it (such as the barely there 'roleplaying mechanics').

I think a lot of that was the drive towards more linear games. As you take away player choice in terms of where they go and what they do, you have to increase it somewhere else. That somewhere else became the character building game.

There's also little doubt that WotC taking over D&D had something to do with it, as deck-building is pretty much the core feature of M:tG.


Outside of D&D, especially since about 2000, games focused more on story structure and character goals have become more common, some even restricting the kind of situations that can cause character death. This is a good thing, a game where characters can't die is and to focus on different things to one where death is an eternal presence.

Keep in mind that "no character death" doesn't necessarily mean "easy mode". A lot of these games have the characters failing far more often than in most D&D games, it's just that death isn't the default consequence of failure.


And while I'd like to throw a ton of blame at Critical Role for promoting this style of gameplay, I actually think it being a common style of game affected how they presented the game rather than the other way around. So they get a free pass on this one.

"Blame" DragonLance.



I honestly think that 0e is best seen as being like HeroQuest (the Games Workshop one) than modern D&D. It was more of a wargame, on the one hand the players with their characters and henchmen, and on the other hand the DM with their hordes of evil, and the players won if they managed to come out of the dungeon with more coin than they went in with.

I don't think that's accurate, knowing people that actually gamed with Gary.

Zarrgon
2020-04-30, 01:02 PM
I'm wondering if a lot of bad games could be explained by a clash in gamer culture.

Yes. Culture and game styles are very different, and always have been. And the shift happened right about the mid 90's or so.

Old School: If you played a game, you might lose: In fact the game ONLY has meaning IF you can loose. It's a big part of a person making the push TO win: you only get one chance. There is no safety net: you win or you loose. If you win, you are the hero of the moment and 'better' then everyone else(ONLY in the sense that you won a game vs them and NOT at life in general). And if you do loose, it IS a big deal....well, for a couple seconds: you are a looser(in the sense you lost a game, NOT life in general.) But it ultimately does not matter much: everyone has lost a time or two or five thousand. But you get right back up and play the game again.

The Safe Place: Games are just activities to take up some time: there are no winders or looses, everyone just participates equally. Everyone who plays the game, even if they do nothing, gets a trophy. The safety net is so huge, that your not even playing a game: your just doing an activity. Everyone is happy and everyone is equal. And it matters far too much, as everyone's whole individual physiological well being is wrapped up in the activity.

Scripten
2020-04-30, 01:16 PM
Always good to know that there's never a drought of people complaining about how badwrongfun other types of playstyles are.

kyoryu
2020-04-30, 01:43 PM
Nintendo hard as I understand it (probably from TVTropes as well, although it's been a while) was a holdover from the arcade days. In an arcade game you play until you die. To make the most money off of these games the player had to die just as quickly as possibly, yet just slow enough that they didn't feel cheated and instead would want to try again.

For arcade games, sure.

But even for home games, you had Nintendo Hard. A lot of that was based on limitations - you could only get so much content in those cartridges, so you had to figure out a way to make it last so people got their money's worth. And usually that was difficulty, so people had to go through the game multiple times to get good enough to "beat" it.

Anonymouswizard
2020-04-30, 02:09 PM
Yes. Culture and game styles are very different, and always have been. And the shift happened right about the mid 90's or so.

Old School: If you played a game, you might lose: In fact the game ONLY has meaning IF you can loose. It's a big part of a person making the push TO win: you only get one chance. There is no safety net: you win or you loose. If you win, you are the hero of the moment and 'better' then everyone else(ONLY in the sense that you won a game vs them and NOT at life in general). And if you do loose, it IS a big deal....well, for a couple seconds: you are a looser(in the sense you lost a game, NOT life in general.) But it ultimately does not matter much: everyone has lost a time or two or five thousand. But you get right back up and play the game again.

The Safe Place: Games are just activities to take up some time: there are no winders or looses, everyone just participates equally. Everyone who plays the game, even if they do nothing, gets a trophy. The safety net is so huge, that your not even playing a game: your just doing an activity. Everyone is happy and everyone is equal. And it matters far too much, as everyone's whole individual physiological well being is wrapped up in the activity.

Ouch, I guess somebody has never played modern board games. I've played ones where the winner explicitly gets the right to gloat to the winner. Maybe in family-oriented board games, but those have a different market to 'serious' board games.

And like, I enjoy my RPGs to be collaboration, if I wanted to compete I'd play a board game or Magic. To me an RPG should be a process of creation, and yes while character death should happen and challenges should not always succeed it should also not be a 'gotcha' moment. But then again I tend not to run D&D but rather games where storytelling highs and lows are part of the mechanics.

But for the record, the only person I've ever known who took winning badly would be in their fifties by now. Most people I've known, even people in their twenties and below, consider losing to be something that has to happen to somebody, and hey it's better if you total everybody's scores and see where you came in the pack. There are even games which only have the states of 'everybody wins' and 'everybody loses', they're generally played 'against the board' and require the players to coordinate if they want to win.

Now I'll agree, 'everybody's a winner' can be a problem, but the way I originally encountered participation awards was somewhat different. Yes everybody was rewarded for taking part, but doing well meant you were rewarded better, even if it was just prestige. Not everybody was a winner, but the idea was 'reward the kids so they don't start thinking effort is worthless, reward the winners better so the kids are motivated to improve'.

When I was a kid I had a tophy for coming fourth in a ballroom dancing competition. I was annoyed because when my siblings did the competition in other years (one before two after) they got first or second place trophies. As a kid it was nice to get a reward, but I still wanted to be the one with the first place prize.

Zarrgon
2020-04-30, 03:35 PM
I think a good point about gamer cluture for an RPG is what type of hero does a player want to be?

Popular Culture gives us a couple big types:

1.The Clever Hero: They are mostly average in most things, except they have a quick, clever and insightful mind. They can figure out things other normal people can't and can win by their wits alone.

This hero is very popular, going back thousands of years. The vast majority of myths worldwide have the clever hero. Odysseus is the crowing example, but also many more. This covers the bulk of the classic Pulp Heroes, Classic Super Heroes(like Batman before he became a Ninja Demigod), Detective Heroes(starting with Sherlock Holmes, of course) to Flash Gordon, Conan(in the original books), and Buck Rogers.

2.The Every Man Hero: They are nobody really: they are just like you or me. Except when they are put into a situation they simply strive to win whatever way they can using whatever they can.

This hero has had a lot of modern popularity, from Pulp Heroes to Westerns to the Tough Guys of the '70's and 80's movies. John Mclaine (Die Hard) is the obvious example. Also Ellen Ripley(Alien(s)), Jack Burton - Big trouble in little China, Frodo Baggins & Samwise Gamgee - The Lord of the Rings (just in case some people didn't know), Indiana Jones, and the vast majority of Clint Eastwood characters.

3.The Chosen One: They are super special. They are chosen! They are not like anyone else: they are unique! And naturally they have all powerful abilities no one else has: only them as they are special and chosen.

It's a classic, of course, with demi gods like Hercules and then to modern ones like Superman or the Hulk. The big modern push comes with Luke Skywalker, then cartoon anime ones and the crown jewel of Neo(the Matrix).



So back in the Time Before Time, the '70's and '80's till about the mid '90's the typical player wanted to be a Clever Everyperson Hero. they wanted to play a fictional character with only a few ''slightly above normal" abilities and wanted to solve and conquer in game problems using their own real life personal wit, skills, cleverness and intelligence. This is classic Old School Gaming right here: The Player IS playing the game "as themselves" and Role Playing the character only outside the game rules.

Then you get to the mid '90's......and get the Rise of the Chosen One. That is still rippling to today. EVERYONE wants to be the Super Special All Powerful Chosen One. They want to play a character with demi god abilities, very specifically abilities they themselves don't possess. They want to solve and conquer in game problems using Rolls and Rules and Only Their Super Powered Fictional Character Abilities. New Gaming: The Player wants the Character/Rolls/Game Rules to do all the work while they just sit, watch and take credit.

So you can see the huge difference.

AND it is not about what way is "better", it is just about two Gaming Cultures.

Anonymouswizard
2020-04-30, 04:06 PM
***attempts to justify the theory***


So back in the Time Before Time, the '70's and '80's till about the mid '90's the typical player wanted to be a Clever Everyperson Hero. they wanted to play a fictional character with only a few ''slightly above normal" abilities and wanted to solve and conquer in game problems using their own real life personal wit, skills, cleverness and intelligence. This is classic Old School Gaming right here: The Player IS playing the game "as themselves" and Role Playing the character only outside the game rules.

Then you get to the mid '90's......and get the Rise of the Chosen One. That is still rippling to today. EVERYONE wants to be the Super Special All Powerful Chosen One. They want to play a character with demi god abilities, very specifically abilities they themselves don't possess. They want to solve and conquer in game problems using Rolls and Rules and Only Their Super Powered Fictional Character Abilities. New Gaming: The Player wants the Character/Rolls/Game Rules to do all the work while they just sit, watch and take credit.

So you can see the huge difference.

AND it is not about what way is "better", it is just about two Gaming Cultures.

I'm honestly insulted. You're making massive assumptions which boil down to 'players from younger generations want to be super special snowflakes who never fail', wheras the games I've had with people in their twenties have been much closer to comedies of errors than demigods with your rolls meaning nothing if you couldn't give a rough outline.

Like you claim that neither way is better while painting your 'old style' in positive terms and your 'new style' in negative terms. It's clear that you want to tell people that those who are playing a certain way are having badwrongfun because they're too afraid to lose.

And I guess everybody who played a Magic-User in the 70s and 80s was secretly a member of this 'new gaming' culture because they had accessto abilities that their players didn't? Or does that not count as they're not special snowflakes who don't want to be actually challenged for fear of losing?

Gnoman
2020-04-30, 04:35 PM
For arcade games, sure.

But even for home games, you had Nintendo Hard. A lot of that was based on limitations - you could only get so much content in those cartridges, so you had to figure out a way to make it last so people got their money's worth. And usually that was difficulty, so people had to go through the game multiple times to get good enough to "beat" it.

Arcade mindsets were still a heavy influence on home titles, even those that were not direct arcade ports. There was an entire mindset built into game development that didn't change for a long time.


There's also a similar effect in that the US versions of quite a few Japanese-developed games were proven (developers have admitted it interviews) to have been made much harder to combat renting, which the publishers viewed as a threat to their revenue. They wanted to ensure you couldn't beat it in a few days, so you'd have to buy it if you wanted to finish it.

Unavenger
2020-04-30, 04:47 PM
Games where the life of an adventurer is treated as nasty, brutish, and short

Fortunately, we now have social contracts to prevent this sort of thing... :smalltongue:

Pex
2020-04-30, 05:28 PM
I can't speak for video games, but I am so glad the days of Killer DMs are no longer a popular thing. No doubt they still exist, but no longer are they accepted as the norm. If I'm being badwrongfun here I'm proud of the label. It's not the DM's job to kill PCs. A DM's kill count is not something to boast about.

Obligatory: That is NOT the same thing as saying there must be no PC death ever.

For games like Paranoia or Call of Cthulu where it's sort of the point, that's fine for those games and those who enjoy them.

ExLibrisMortis
2020-04-30, 05:52 PM
[error]
You're pretty much just making stuff up; if I had to guess, you're projecting some particular prejudices onto the history of gaming. Needless to say, neither of the chronologies you suggest really exist.

Quertus
2020-04-30, 06:57 PM
Always good to know that there's never a drought of people complaining about how badwrongfun other types of playstyles are.

True as that may be, I think that what we have here is the opposite case. This isn't "I hate what you do in the privacy of your own", so much as, "you mean, there's people who like that? And, when (s)he tried to inflict that on me… they actually thought I'd like it, because they didn't realize that there could be people who *don't* like it?".

So, it's an after-the-fact attempt to rationalize the abuse of bad GMs as a simple misunderstanding. And, while it certainly could explain some things, I'm not buying it in the general case. My issue, personally, is with GMs who are incapable of having the conversation about preferences, who are seemingly incapable of comprehending other styles of play, of understanding that, maybe, if they changed the way that they did certain things, that their players might have more fun.

The not just existence but overwhelming numbers of such GMs makes me leery of giving this thread but so much credence.

Zarrgon
2020-04-30, 09:03 PM
I'm honestly insulted. You're making massive assumptions which boil down to 'players from younger generations want to be super special snowflakes who never fail', wheras the games I've had with people in their twenties have been much closer to comedies of errors than demigods with your rolls meaning nothing if you couldn't give a rough outline.

I though I was clear it was timeless? Characters like Hercules have been popular for thousands of years. And both Superman and the Hulk have been around for a long time too. So the all powerful demi god has been popular forever.



Like you claim that neither way is better while painting your 'old style' in positive terms and your 'new style' in negative terms. It's clear that you want to tell people that those who are playing a certain way are having badwrongfun because they're too afraid to lose.

Well, sure, I play the Old School type game where the Player must use their real life skills as part of playing the game. And I dislike the games where a player just rolls dice to get a clever idea or figure something out in the game.

But that is just what I think....it does not make the other way wrong.....just wrong for me.




And I guess everybody who played a Magic-User in the 70s and 80s was secretly a member of this 'new gaming' culture because they had accessto abilities that their players didn't? Or does that not count as they're not special snowflakes who don't want to be actually challenged for fear of losing?

Well, remember before 3E magic users did not have all that much 'power', in the same sense as they do after 3E.....and, of course, before 3E a DM could just say 'eh, your magic explodes and your character dies', and the player would just be 'ok'.


You're pretty much just making stuff up; if I had to guess, you're projecting some particular prejudices onto the history of gaming. Needless to say, neither of the chronologies you suggest really exist.

Sure they do, they are easy enough to see.

vasilidor
2020-05-01, 01:14 AM
snipped



Well, remember before 3E magic users did not have all that much 'power', in the same sense as they do after 3E.....and, of course, before 3E a DM could just say 'eh, your magic explodes and your character dies', and the player would just be 'ok'.



Sure they do, they are easy enough to see.
never had that happen to me, it probably would have killed my interest in playing.

KineticDiplomat
2020-05-01, 01:17 AM
So - there actually are plenty of modern games out there that maintain the concept of lethality and/or failure. D&D continues to monopolize the conversation (despite my personal opinion that it’s a thematically dull, mechanistically mediocre game) but it is entirely possible to find and play games that have far higher consequence rates than D&D.

And in many cases they are not player versus GM Tomb of Horrors. They are still collaborative story telling - just in a world where the PCs are not assumed to consistently triumph over challenge sets designed exactly for them, or not to do it for free.

Often they are set in low fantasy, cyberpunk, crime or other less heroic modes - though ironically, some of the “god” level ones have far more chance of failure than a mid level d&d - as these genres do not assume the story of Turnip Farmer Becomes Hero that is baked into modern D&D.

Anyhow, it certainly isn’t relegated to the old school. The new school of it just gets paved over by the giant in the playground, much to everyone’s loss.

EggKookoo
2020-05-01, 06:14 AM
I've been playing TTRPGs since the late 70s. Killer GMs were always jerks. If there's a culture shift, it's been toward less tolerance of that kind of nonsense. See also player-vs-player. When I was a kid, you had to sometimes watch out for jerk players who (sometimes in compliance with a jerk GM) would ambush and kill other PCs, then blame it on alignment or something. I haven't seen that kind of stuff in ages and I would hope we've evolved past it, but it could also be that I've gotten more discerning with whom I play.

I have seen a power struggle of sorts emerge over the years, at least in some games. D&D itself has swung from a pro-DM position to a pro-player position, back to what seems to be more of a pro-DM position with 5e. I don't expect this pendulum to stop, but it might spend some time in its current position given the popularity of 5th edition.

Anonymouswizard
2020-05-01, 06:58 AM
Fortunately, we now have social contracts to prevent this sort of thing... :smalltongue:

I mean, exactly. When games present the lives of adventurers as nastu brutish and short it means that the game is implicitly removing that part of the social contract, otherwise it's assumed that most groups will have some sort of success even if they don't succeed at everything.


I though I was clear it was timeless? Characters like Hercules have been popular for thousands of years. And both Superman and the Hulk have been around for a long time too. So the all powerful demi god has been popular forever.0

And very heavily implied that with gaming it's a generational thing, with those dang whippersnappers being too afraid of losing to play anything other than a demigod chosen one.


Well, sure, I play the Old School type game where the Player must use their real life skills as part of playing the game. And I dislike the games where a player just rolls dice to get a clever idea or figure something out in the game.

But that is just what I think....it does not make the other way wrong.....just wrong for me.

Then can you remember to use less antagonistic language? Because as it is you're literally implying 'they can't play it my way because they're scared of losing'.


Well, remember before 3E magic users did not have all that much 'power', in the same sense as they do after 3E.....and, of course, before 3E a DM could just say 'eh, your magic explodes and your character dies', and the player would just be 'ok'.

Only if you subscribe to the worst kinds of 'the GM is god' behaviour, otherwise they have the same level of 'power' just a lot more restrictions and drawbacks that makes it less convinient.

Like, if the social construct allowed the GM to randomly kill off a player's character because they tried to use a spell the rules say they could, then I at least would very quickly see spellcasters being dropped like flies in echange for something else, if the GM isn't just kicked out of the group entirely.

Because it's essentially the biggest '**** you' in tabletop games since the words 'let's play Monopoly'.


Sure they do, they are easy enough to see.


I've been playing TTRPGs since the late 70s. Killer GMs were always jerks. If there's a culture shift, it's been toward less tolerance of that kind of nonsense. See also player-vs-player. When I was a kid, you had to sometimes watch out for jerk players who (sometimes in compliance with a jerk GM) would ambush and kill other PCs, then blame it on alignment or something. I haven't seen that kind of stuff in ages and I would hope we've evolved past it, but it could also be that I've gotten more discerning with whom I play.

I have seen a power struggle of sorts emerge over the years, at least in some games. D&D itself has swung from a pro-DM position to a pro-player position, back to what seems to be more of a pro-DM position with 5e. I don't expect this pendulum to stop, but it might spend some time in its current position given the popularity of 5th edition.

I'd argue that there's been a move towards the centre (less meatgrinders, but also less Monty Haul), anf a movement towards cooperation rather than competition, although in D&D at least the idea that players can rely on the rules seems to have gone out the window in 5e with the game becoming a long session of 'mother may I'.

EggKookoo
2020-05-01, 07:59 AM
I'd argue that there's been a move towards the centre (less meatgrinders, but also less Monty Haul), anf a movement towards cooperation rather than competition, although in D&D at least the idea that players can rely on the rules seems to have gone out the window in 5e with the game becoming a long session of 'mother may I'.

Can we put the "mother may I" fallacy to rest? Every TTRPG with a GM is "mother may I."

King of Nowhere
2020-05-01, 08:20 AM
while it certainly could explain some things, I'm not buying it in the general case.

well, more specifically, this musing of mine was triggered by another thread where someone was talking about one such DM having his own group since 3.0, and doing many terrible things in his group but nonetheless keeping it. so, it was mostly an isolated group, that may have had few contacts with the greater community.

for as a general case, i believe there is no excuse for lack of communication.
but it's not about excusing. it's about, perhaps, putting stuff into context.
Understanding does not mean excusing

Saint-Just
2020-05-01, 08:26 AM
Can we put the "mother may I" fallacy to rest? Every TTRPG with a GM is "mother may I."

I've never played 5e but I believe there's a big difference between "this is the rules, GM may overrule them" and "there is no rules, ask your GM to quantify the situation".

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-01, 08:46 AM
I've never played 5e but I believe there's a big difference between "this is the rules, GM may overrule them" and "there is no rules, ask your GM to quantify the situation".

5E has a bunch of rules for everything. The difference is how they're presented and the table culture they're trying to encourage. The rules exist to provide framework, structure, and chance. They do not exist as a mechanic for the "player" to defeat or win over the "DM" in an opposed game, even if you can twist them to work that way.

Anonymouswizard
2020-05-01, 09:03 AM
Can we put the "mother may I" fallacy to rest? Every TTRPG with a GM is "mother may I."

We can when people stop trying to insist that 5e has roleplaying mechanics.


5E has a bunch of rules for everything. The difference is how they're presented and the table culture they're trying to encourage. The rules exist to provide framework, structure, and chance. They do not exist as a mechanic for the "player" to defeat or win over the "DM" in an opposed game, even if you can twist them to work that way.

The thing is that 5er's are trying to have it both ways, have their rules system be 'rules-light/medium' while also not being a game of 'mother may I'.

The thing is, there's actually nothing wrong with 5e, except it promotes the attitude of 'the GM is always right and players should have no say on where the game goes', an attitude that I am utterly at odds with. In many ways it's the opposite of Burning Wheel, Burning Wheel is a rules-heavy game that knows exactly what it wants to be, puts great focus on the characters and story, is intentionally unbalanced (an elf is better than a human noble, who is better than a human tradesperson, who is better than a human peasant, who is better than a human slave), and encourages the GM to go along with player decisions ('say yes or roll the dice'), but throwing in twists. D&D 5e is also rules-heavy with a focus on the characters, but it's balance is unintentional (and mainly focused on spells) and encourages the GM to say no.

I really, really like Burning Wheel, I really do not like D&D5e. 'The GM is always right' has a lot to do with that, it goes from 'can I attempt' to 'am I allowed to attempt'.

EggKookoo
2020-05-01, 09:04 AM
I've never played 5e but I believe there's a big difference between "this is the rules, GM may overrule them" and "there is no rules, ask your GM to quantify the situation".

I suggest you try 5e before deciding that it has no rules.


We can when people stop trying to insist that 5e has roleplaying mechanics.

Who insists that?


I really, really like Burning Wheel, I really do not like D&D5e. 'The GM is always right' has a lot to do with that, it goes from 'can I attempt' to 'am I allowed to attempt'.

5e does not say that. You can attempt anything in 5e and the DM can't stop you.

What 5e says is that the DM is the one who decides if a check is involved. You want to juggle that elephant? Go right ahead and try. The consequence is you can't lift it -- how much time to you spend struggling? The DM is not stopping you from making the attempt. There's just no point in calling for a die roll since there's no DC you could possibly hit (e.g. it's over 9000).

This is really no different from any other TTRPG. Anything a player attempts is going to pass through a kind of "common sense" filter on the part of the GM. If the player is attempting something outright impossible, the GM will say so. If the player is attempting to do something so simple they can't reasonably fail, the GM will just let it happen. Anything else will invoke a mechanical check of some kind, based on the system.

Zhorn
2020-05-01, 09:24 AM
I just hope for those games that strike that perfect middle-ground of "harsh but fair", when the expected mortality rate is high, but the challenges are never "the DM is intentionally trying to kill my character" bad.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-01, 09:24 AM
We can when people stop trying to insist that 5e has roleplaying mechanics.



The thing is that 5er's are trying to have it both ways, have their rules system be 'rules-light/medium' while also not being a game of 'mother may I'.

The thing is, there's actually nothing wrong with 5e, except it promotes the attitude of 'the GM is always right and players should have no say on where the game goes', an attitude that I am utterly at odds with. In many ways it's the opposite of Burning Wheel, Burning Wheel is a rules-heavy game that knows exactly what it wants to be, puts great focus on the characters and story, is intentionally unbalanced (an elf is better than a human noble, who is better than a human tradesperson, who is better than a human peasant, who is better than a human slave), and encourages the GM to go along with player decisions ('say yes or roll the dice'), but throwing in twists. D&D 5e is also rules-heavy with a focus on the characters, but it's balance is unintentional (and mainly focused on spells) and encourages the GM to say no.

I really, really like Burning Wheel, I really do not like D&D5e. 'The GM is always right' has a lot to do with that, it goes from 'can I attempt' to 'am I allowed to attempt'.

I'm glad you have a game you enjoy in "Burning Wheel", but i think we can both agree that Burning Wheel isn't currently a major driver in the changing culture of the TTRPG landscape.

Anonymouswizard
2020-05-01, 09:38 AM
I'm glad you have a game you enjoy in "Burning Wheel", but i think we can both agree that Burning Wheel isn't currently a major driver in the changing culture of the TTRPG landscape.

And I wouldn't expect Burning Wheel to be, it was released in 2002, last updated in 2011, and had it's last book released in 2016. But D&D was last a mojr driver back in 3,X, 4e mostly flopped and 5e is incredibly derivative (all it's new stuff is underdeveloped versions of things other games had been doing five years ago).

Zarrgon
2020-05-01, 10:21 AM
And very heavily implied that with gaming it's a generational thing, with those dang whippersnappers being too afraid of losing to play anything other than a demigod chosen one.

Well, Either:

1.You are reading things into what I typed that are not thier for reasons of your own..

OR

2.I'm such an amazing emotive writer that I can make you see and feel things with just the words I type.




Then can you remember to use less antagonistic language? Because as it is you're literally implying 'they can't play it my way because they're scared of losing'.

Well, I never typed that?




Only if you subscribe to the worst kinds of 'the GM is god' behaviour, otherwise they have the same level of 'power' just a lot more restrictions and drawbacks that makes it less convinient.

Well, GM is ''game god" or "game controller", sure. Remember though that just as you dislike something it's not wrong.



Like, if the social construct allowed the GM to randomly kill off a player's character because they tried to use a spell the rules say they could, then I at least would very quickly see spellcasters being dropped like flies in echange for something else, if the GM isn't just kicked out of the group entirely.

Now I have years and years of gaming to say this is not true. The bad player who wants to ruin the game for everyone doing a ''official rules say they can" thing like say scry and die, who has their character obliterated by me is rare. But sure it happens from time to time, and that player will stomp their feet and go home.




I'd argue that there's been a move towards the centre (less meatgrinders, but also less Monty Haul), anf a movement towards cooperation rather than competition, although in D&D at least the idea that players can rely on the rules seems to have gone out the window in 5e with the game becoming a long session of 'mother may I'.

Well combat is as popular as ever: tons of players sit on the edge of their seats eager to 'fight'. And players still love loot as much as they always have. Cooperation? Eh, not so much.



This is really no different from any other TTRPG. Anything a player attempts is going to pass through a kind of "common sense" filter on the part of the GM. If the player is attempting something outright impossible, the GM will say so. If the player is attempting to do something so simple they can't reasonably fail, the GM will just let it happen. Anything else will invoke a mechanical check of some kind, based on the system.

For D&D this is a great example of the shift in the gamer culture.

0E,1E,2E--The DM was in control, for good or bad. Some DMs were good at using this power...and some were bad. Though it's the bad ones that get remembered. Though thousands of people had tons of fun playing the game with no complaints.

3E, 3.5E, 4E--The rules were in control, with some vague idea that making the rules paramount would make the game perfectly fair and balanced. Some Dms were good, some were bad, and the ''rules" don't change that. Of course, there were millions of complains as the game was not 'right' or 'perfect' or whatever else anyone wanted.

5E--Back to DM in control, but framed nicely. Some Dms were good, some were bad, and the ''rules" don't change that. And, of course, complaints....

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-01, 10:32 AM
And I wouldn't expect Burning Wheel to be, it was released in 2002, last updated in 2011, and had it's last book released in 2016. But D&D was last a mojr driver back in 3,X, 4e mostly flopped and 5e is incredibly derivative (all it's new stuff is underdeveloped versions of things other games had been doing five years ago).

I don't think it matters how derivative you think 5e is. It's more popular than the most of the industry combined, and as such it's going to end up having the largest influence on the "gamer culture" of TTRPG play. If another game did something 5e has before 5e, chances are 5e will have popularized it even if it didn't invent it. This also applies to rules and mechanics, but is true to a much greater degree to playstyle and culture.

Friv
2020-05-01, 10:35 AM
So back in the Time Before Time, the '70's and '80's till about the mid '90's the typical player wanted to be a Clever Everyperson Hero. they wanted to play a fictional character with only a few ''slightly above normal" abilities and wanted to solve and conquer in game problems using their own real life personal wit, skills, cleverness and intelligence. This is classic Old School Gaming right here: The Player IS playing the game "as themselves" and Role Playing the character only outside the game rules.

Then you get to the mid '90's......and get the Rise of the Chosen One. That is still rippling to today. EVERYONE wants to be the Super Special All Powerful Chosen One. They want to play a character with demi god abilities, very specifically abilities they themselves don't possess. They want to solve and conquer in game problems using Rolls and Rules and Only Their Super Powered Fictional Character Abilities. New Gaming: The Player wants the Character/Rolls/Game Rules to do all the work while they just sit, watch and take credit.

Well, sure, I play the Old School type game where the Player must use their real life skills as part of playing the game. And I dislike the games where a player just rolls dice to get a clever idea or figure something out in the game.

But that is just what I think....it does not make the other way wrong.....just wrong for me.

The problem, Zarrgon, is that you're trying to combine three things into one - the difference between player skill and character skill, how powerful characters are, and how much players want to win. Aside from generally taking a whole range of styles and boiling them into "the people who want to play" and "the people who want to win", it kind of ignores that the larger divides are between "how much is this a game" vs "how much is this a story", and "how much are you a character" vs "how much are you an author".

There's also sort of an odd thing where you're pegging the change as happening in the mid-nineties, which is pretty late, but if we assume that you're conflating "players get authorial powers" with "players get special in-character abilities" that kind of makes sense.

Anyway, I think that most people don't realize that what changed, primarily, was the influence of the other founding RPG. The one that's older than D&D.

I am, of course, speaking of the Society for Creative Anachronism.

Officially founded in 1968, the SCA has all the hallmarks of a role-playing game. Players take on roles of characters (called "personae") with backstories ranging from largely nonexistent to extremely elaborate, in an elaborate fantasy realm, including kingdoms and baronies. They reenact a fantasy-version of medieval life, deliberating anarchronistic for the purpose of fun, take on character names, have tournaments and rules about what they can and can't do to interact with the game.

However, the SCA's approach to role-playing is drawing on an entirely different tradition from the wargaming roots of D&D. However, a lot of the people involved were interested in other fantasy things (heck, three of the four founders were fantasy authors, and the last was the daughter of one of the others.) SCA members came into the D&D fandom, and they brought their own ideas about a role-playing game in which the story was as important as the victory, or more so. SCA didn't have a tradition of gotchas and sudden death; your persona was largely immortal unless you chose to retire and become someone else. So the idea that you were mostly playing with the same characters starts catching on. And as that changes - as you become attached to the story - there starts to be more of a focus on not having sudden deaths, of consequences beyond the dungeon, and so on.

I think that's a big part of what happened; as the game spread into more and more communities that weren't thinking of it as a tactical game first, their priorities shifted, and the game shifted in response.

SunderedWorldDM
2020-05-01, 11:11 AM
Wait, hold on, the "Mother May I" effect? I'm sorry, I've never heard of that before. Is that the implication that RPGs are trending away from specific, codified granular rulesets and trending towards systems where the PCs have more freedom in the world in exchange for the DM having to do more mechanical legwork to make every action fit into the system? I see this as a good thing, it frees up the table to tell ore diverse stories in a system because they're not bound by granular mechanics, and it was the DM's job before to fill in the blanks anyway... is my understanding wrong, or is there some other reason why people believe that this is a negative trend?

Because DnD's always been a game of Mother May I, right? You say what you want to do and something establishes a condition to make that happen. Are people complaining that that's a human and not a book?

King of Nowhere
2020-05-01, 11:17 AM
What 5e says is that the DM is the one who decides if a check is involved. You want to juggle that elephant? Go right ahead and try. The consequence is you can't lift it -- how much time to you spend struggling? The DM is not stopping you from making the attempt. There's just no point in calling for a die roll since there's no DC you could possibly hit (e.g. it's over 9000).

This is really no different from any other TTRPG. Anything a player attempts is going to pass through a kind of "common sense" filter on the part of the GM. If the player is attempting something outright impossible, the GM will say so. If the player is attempting to do something so simple they can't reasonably fail, the GM will just let it happen. Anything else will invoke a mechanical check of some kind, based on the system.

that isn't at all different from my 3.x experience. I've had my fair share of telling my players/ being told by my dm "no, there's no way you can do this" or "no need to roll, that's easy enough for you".

there are some problems with the common sense filter, though. the first is the guy at the gym fallacy, which abunds when the dm has to use a common sense filter. d&d characters are superhumans already since the mid-low levels, and buffed with magic too, so "common sense" has to be rescaled. You want to juggle that elephant? with the right class and magic you can do it. with magic, you can do it easily. You can do it because you are superman, not because it's a failure of the game (though perhaps you being superman is an unintended consequence when optimization entered in the field).

and with 3.x you have some guidelines for how difficult some task is, and you know exactly how good you are at the task. that's much more accurate from the proficiency and advantage system. It allows to spend resources to become more good at something, for once.

Imbalance
2020-05-01, 11:31 AM
Wait, hold on, the "Mother May I" effect? I'm sorry, I've never heard of that before. Is that the implication that RPGs are trending away from specific, codified granular rulesets and trending towards systems where the PCs have more freedom in the world in exchange for the DM having to do more mechanical legwork to make every action fit into the system? I see this as a good thing, it frees up the table to tell ore diverse stories in a system because they're not bound by granular mechanics, and it was the DM's job before to fill in the blanks anyway... is my understanding wrong, or is there some other reason why people believe that this is a negative trend?

Because DnD's always been a game of Mother May I, right? You say what you want to do and something establishes a condition to make that happen. Are people complaining that that's a human and not a book?

Yeah, this confuses me, too. Because if 5e *is* Mother May I, the DM is certainly not "Mother" - the dice are.

EggKookoo
2020-05-01, 11:37 AM
Wait, hold on, the "Mother May I" effect? I'm sorry, I've never heard of that before. Is that the implication that RPGs are trending away from specific, codified granular rulesets and trending towards systems where the PCs have more freedom in the world in exchange for the DM having to do more mechanical legwork to make every action fit into the system? I see this as a good thing, it frees up the table to tell ore diverse stories in a system because they're not bound by granular mechanics, and it was the DM's job before to fill in the blanks anyway... is my understanding wrong, or is there some other reason why people believe that this is a negative trend?

You're interpreting right. I consider it a fallacy in the context that one system is MMI while another isn't. Assuming we all here largely agree on what a tabletop roleplaying game is, they're all MMI in one form or another. Having more detailed mechanics just shifts things around but doesn't eliminate it. And it's arguable if it even significantly reduces it.

I can get behind the kind of thing Pex says. He seems to have specific issues, such as a lack of DCs for various skill checks in 5e. I get that even if I don't agree it's a real problem. But there's also a general reaction to any kind of reality check imposed by the DM. Convention tells us certain things are easy and doable, while other things are hard or even impossible. Ultimately, though, despite any codified mechanics, the DM has to draw those lines somewhere. Drawing them ad hoc at the table is fundamentally no different than drawing them during the campaign-planning stages where the DM is deciding how hard things will be.


there are some problems with the common sense filter, though. the first is the guy at the gym fallacy, which abunds when the dm has to use a common sense filter.

Is it a problem in practice, though? It just means each table will have its own flavor.


You want to juggle that elephant? with the right class and magic you can do it. with magic, you can do it easily. You can do it because you are superman, not because it's a failure of the game (though perhaps you being superman is an unintended consequence when optimization entered in the field).

Okay, but in context of what we're talking about, I don't mean using magic. I mean flexing muscles. There's no PC build that can lift a 5-ton elephant.


and with 3.x you have some guidelines for how difficult some task is, and you know exactly how good you are at the task. that's much more accurate from the proficiency and advantage system. It allows to spend resources to become more good at something, for once.

Yes, bounded accuracy forces a kind of blurriness to task resolution, because it gives greater weight to the dice. This is a notable difference between 3.x and 5e. But it has nothing to do with MMI. It's more like, "dice, don't fail me now!"

I think this is the crux of the issue with regard to a list of example DCs. The problem isn't that 5e lacks such a list, it's that even if it had that list, bounded accuracy would make it, well, not worthless but not really all that valuable. Dice results are so overpowering throughout most levels in 5e that there's strong diminishing returns on trying to lock down precise DCs for things. That uncertainty is what rankles a lot of players, I think.

Willie the Duck
2020-05-01, 11:40 AM
We all heard horror DM tales. games where you don't get any loot, and most smart solution are vetoed. games where you can get a negative debuff that willl never get away, as you won't have the magic to heal it. games where your character can die for a critical fumble. and we wonder why the players put up with them.
then i was browsing tvtropes, and went to nintendo hard, and i realized that in the past, it was the norm for games to be much more brutal and unforgiving. it was pretty common that a single hit could kill you, that you would not be allowed to skip stuff by being clever, that you would not get any significant power-up through all the game.
So I'm thinking, maybe those bad DM and bad games aren't exactly bad per se, but they are rather a leftover after a shift in gamer culture. And perhaps the people in those games - even those people who feel miserable - think that it should be normal for a game to make you miserable unless you are an absolute pro, because it was the norm.
which, by the way, was probably a result of games being, by necessity, much simpler at the time. so the only way to make them challenging would be to have them being very unforgiving of small mistakes.
I'm wondering if a lot of bad games could be explained by a clash in gamer culture.
I wasn’t there for the for the very beginning of the game, but I definitely played a lot of the TSR-era (including a lot of the pre-2e era), and have spoken to a bunch of people from the early Twin Cities scene*. I want to clarify a few things about the old days (and of course this will be a IMO, YMMV, etc. situation):
*Also read Playing at the World, which I would recommend to everyone who wants to understand the early days of the game, in no small part because it is a primary-source-only piece of research, so there isn’t the retro-active reinterpretation issue of people’s memories.
To be clear, the initial game very much was set up like what we now think of as a Roguelike game – you are competing for a high score in a system where death is around every corner and getting too attached to your character probably isn’t that great of an idea. In no small part because that was what the designers thought people would like, having come from a wargaming background (where you are actually competing with pieces you don’t get too attached to for a victory or high score). However, reports of how cutthroat, kill-happy, and tough-as-nails (the experience of which cuts the wheat from the chaff and turns boys into men, etc. etc. etc.) is very much exaggeration through retelling (perhaps with a ‘back in my day, we had to walk to school uphill both ways without shoes, and we liked it’ vibe). I think it important to note that:
There was an assumption of being able to (eventually, after multiple tries) get to reasonably high level, and then be somewhat resilient to sudden death. Else the entire subsystem of turning into feudal lord, complete with castle and followers, never would be needed.
The Tomb of Horrors, the iconic ‘Deathtrap’ module, which cemented the notion of killer DM and DM vs. player gaming, was never intended to be the model for how normative gaming was supposed to be. It was a tournament module, where there was supposed to be competitive play for prizes, with ‘last man standing (with the most treasure)’ was the goal. TSR did themselves a huge disservice by releasing this as the first published module
Much of the ‘DM-Player Arms Race’ stuff (such as thieves’ listening at doors, so there have to be ear-seeker monsters to make that a bad idea) was in fact an arms race between Gary and his son Ernie and his friend Rob Kuntz (who rose to high level and wealth because Rob kept ‘breaking’ the game by outthinking Gary’s setup). Again TSR did a disservice by not just throwing such stuff into the game books without further comment.
Roleplaying aspects to the game were there from the very start. Sure the game evolved from Chainmail, but also from Diplomacy, and a nonpublished abstract city-running game system called Braunstein.
High power, pseudo-invincible PCs occurred right from the very start. Robilar being a great example, but also amongst the wider game base. Certainly people taking Gods, Demigods, and Heroes and treating it as another monster manual is the iconic case, but just the inclusion of artifacts in the game created the desire to obtain and use them (and DMs certainly handed them out. The Arduin Grimoire was one of the earliest well-known third party supplements, and it was known for being a way to play Exalted-like demigods two decades ahead of that game.
The Mythology of how the game played out back in the day has taken on something of a life of its own. It’s useful to remember that things like Knights of the Dinner Table and such are parodies.
I guess my main point is that playstyle was highly variable right from the start, much of the ‘DM vs. Player’ mentality was massively overblown (not unreasonably though, TSR/Gary shooting themselves in the foot multiple times, reputation-wise), Monty-haul or ‘playing on easy mode’ gaming was there right from the beginning, and it has always been as easy or hard as people made it.


I don't think that's accurate, knowing people that actually gamed with Gary.
If you mean Ernie and Mike M., they will say that there was a subtle competition between him and his players, but always in a, ‘good job finding a loophole, you know I’m going to find a way to push back, right?’ kind of way. It probably surprises some that he wanted people to have fun playing the game. The thing that I find odd is how often people call it ‘like a wargame.’ Early D&D was derived from a wargame, but if all they wanted to do was play a wargame, D&D would never have been invented, because they already had a wargame – Chainmail.


Yes. Culture and game styles are very different, and always have been. And the shift happened right about the mid 90's or so.
I think this must be one of those, ‘the golden age of ____ is 12’ scenarios, because what was described could also be associated with the early 80s, or within 6 months of when D&D was first published, or before it was published.


Now I'll agree, 'everybody's a winner' can be a problem, but the way I originally encountered participation awards was somewhat different. Yes everybody was rewarded for taking part, but doing well meant you were rewarded better, even if it was just prestige. Not everybody was a winner, but the idea was 'reward the kids so they don't start thinking effort is worthless, reward the winners better so the kids are motivated to improve'.

When I was a kid I had a tophy for coming fourth in a ballroom dancing competition. I was annoyed because when my siblings did the competition in other years (one before two after) they got first or second place trophies. As a kid it was nice to get a reward, but I still wanted to be the one with the first place prize.

‘Kids these days’ are doing more, with less, than their parents ever could (or had to do), and for the most part with far less complaining. And for the most part, it was their parents who handed out the participation trophies, which said kids knew darn well didn’t mean anything except one more thing to gather dust on their bookshelf. Good on you for recognizing this.

Zarrgon
2020-05-01, 11:52 AM
The problem, Zarrgon, is that you're trying to combine three things into one - the difference between player skill and character skill, how powerful characters are, and how much players want to win. Aside from generally taking a whole range of styles and boiling them into "the people who want to play" and "the people who want to win", it kind of ignores that the larger divides are between "how much is this a game" vs "how much is this a story", and "how much are you a character" vs "how much are you an author".

I did not think I was combining them. The story and game plot and being an author have not changed: all that is mostly not even covered by the rules anyway.



There's also sort of an odd thing where you're pegging the change as happening in the mid-nineties, which is pretty late, but if we assume that you're conflating "players get authorial powers" with "players get special in-character abilities" that kind of makes sense.

Yea, the mid 90's is when you see the change in gaming culture.



I think that's a big part of what happened; as the game spread into more and more communities that weren't thinking of it as a tactical game first, their priorities shifted, and the game shifted in response.

Ok, I agree this happened BUT before this D&D was NOT only the hack and slash murderhobo meatgrinder nightmare you think it was.

See the BIG thing about the D&D rules is that they only cover the action of the game, mostly the combat. The rest is wide open. You CAN play D&D like a simple numbers game: make character 1 and go into dungeon room 1 and fight monster 1 OR you could add role playing to D&D.

And really, right from the start you had the classic Roll vs Role playing in D&D: and this has never changed. Pick any point in D&D history and you will find DMs making massive role playing game worlds and players making massive role playing characters. It's not a new thing at all. And the rules have never changed or shifted that much to make D&D a mechanical role playing game: There is NO section of the rules filled with mechanical crunch even close to what there is for Combat.

It's not that role playing came out of nowhere: it's the shift in culture about how the role playing was done.

And easy explanation might be Before Players though of their character as more of just part of an ensemble cast that where no special or important or protected in anyway.

After Players thought of their character as the super star and the most important character in the world and that the whole world revolves around them and protects them.

It's the difference between cartoons like Robotech(Macross) where plenty of main characters die and GI Joe, where everyone always lives(and you know the good guys, er, throw their gun at the bad guys to knock them down).

So if you take the exact same story Before and After of "A prince fighting to reclaim his kingdom and be crowned king": The Before role playing ending is not written: anything might happen, including the character failing and or dying. In the After, the character is automatically guaranteed to save the kingdom and become king and live happily ever after, and the game reality will make that so.

Anonymouswizard
2020-05-01, 12:01 PM
Yeah, this confuses me, too. Because if 5e *is* Mother May I, the DM is certainly not "Mother" - the dice are.

Who decides the DC? That's why the GM is 'mother'. Games like 3.X aren't considered MMI because they give relatively concrete benchmarks, an Athletics check of X allows you to jump Y feet, ideally in a deconstructable or explicit relationship (distance jumped = height + result/4 or whatever).

Sure you can run MMI in any system, but some give more solidy benchmarks at multiple points on the scale to encourage consistency.


‘Kids these days’ are doing more, with less, than their parents ever could (or had to do), and for the most part with far less complaining. And for the most part, it was their parents who handed out the participation trophies, which said kids knew darn well didn’t mean anything except one more thing to gather dust on their bookshelf. Good on you for recognizing this.

I really don't want to get political, so I'll leave it as 'I have strong opinions on "kids these days"' sentiments. But I grew up in the day of participation trophies, and so while I can't be overly accurate I will say that 1) their presence varied, 2) officially given out ones pretty much stopped after a very young age, and 3) they seemed to be more about making parents feel better than make kids feel better.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and people my age are whining about everything publically in all the avenues I don't often check. I'm more used to gritted teeth myself.

SunderedWorldDM
2020-05-01, 12:07 PM
Who decides the DC? That's why the GM is 'mother'. Games like 3.X aren't considered MMI because they give relatively concrete benchmarks, an Athletics check of X allows you to jump Y feet, ideally in a deconstructable or explicit relationship (distance jumped = height + result/4 or whatever).

Sure you can run MMI in any system, but some give more solidy benchmarks at multiple points on the scale to encourage consistency.
It always seems that consistency and flexibility are sort of opposed to me. Like, your 3.X book has a million little numbers to toss about, but a) nobody wants to sit there for 2 minutes while you parse out the DC for a Ride check when a PC wants to jump off their horse while shooting an arrow, and b) the book probably doesn't have all the answers anyway. The game flows smoother when you're asking a person, who's capable of creativity and flexible thinking, instead of a book that tries and fails to conform to every situation, how to resolve actions mechanically.

What makes consistency so valuable, anyways? Like, say one DM sets the DC for climbing a brick wall at 12 and another one says 15 and a third says 10, or maybe the same DM says those numbers at different times. It's not going to matter too much in the long run, and so long as the story and game keep chugging forward, I'd rather a quick number than a perfect number? It just perplexes me why some people are so hung up on the same thing happening over and over in a game of "Pretend: Dice Edition".

Willie the Duck
2020-05-01, 12:24 PM
What makes consistency so valuable, anyways? Like, say one DM sets the DC for climbing a brick wall at 12 and another one says 15 and a third says 10, or maybe the same DM says those numbers at different times. It's not going to matter too much in the long run, and so long as the story and game keep chugging forward, I'd rather a quick number than a perfect number? It just perplexes me why some people are so hung up on the same thing happening over and over in a game of "Pretend: Dice Edition".

My impression is that the more you have run into the situation of jerk DM (or DM who lets jerk players make the game unenjoyable for others), the more one values consistency. Pex and Anonymouswizard and Pex in particular* seem to have had some pretty harried experiences with such, and as such have been strong proponents over on the 5e forum for hard, fast rules, less neccesitation of GM adjudication, and concrete difficulty numbers.
*I am genuinely terrified to hear what gaming was like for Pex at 14.

I agree that oftentimes systems with very concrete numbers don't actually have good numbers (or the process of arriving at said numbers is overly burdensome and disruptive to gameplay), and experienced and trustworthy DMs in looser systems can often arrive at fair numbers on the fly, but if you don't have those DMs, what good is that to you?

There doesn't (to me) seem to be a one right answer.

SunderedWorldDM
2020-05-01, 12:40 PM
My impression is that the more you have run into the situation of jerk DM (or DM who lets jerk players make the game unenjoyable for others), the more one values consistency. Pex and Anonymouswizard and Pex in particular* seem to have had some pretty harried experiences with such, and as such have been strong proponents over on the 5e forum for hard, fast rules, less neccesitation of GM adjudication, and concrete difficulty numbers.
*I am genuinely terrified to hear what gaming was like for Pex at 14.

I agree that oftentimes systems with very concrete numbers don't actually have good numbers (or the process of arriving at said numbers is overly burdensome and disruptive to gameplay), and experienced and trustworthy DMs in looser systems can often arrive at fair numbers on the fly, but if you don't have those DMs, what good is that to you?

There doesn't (to me) seem to be a one right answer.
Oh, that makes a lot of sense, so the game has a chance of being fun even if the DM isn't. That's never been a problem for me, in fact, I find the opposite is true, I prefer a game closer to MMI, because I feel a lot more freedom to express myself and to allow my players/DM to do the same in a system where the rules are fewer and far between. But I really do understand the other perspective now, and I appreciate that! Thanks so much.

Anonymouswizard
2020-05-01, 12:46 PM
My impression is that the more you have run into the situation of jerk DM (or DM who lets jerk players make the game unenjoyable for others), the more one values consistency. Pex and Anonymouswizard and Pex in particular* seem to have had some pretty harried experiences with such, and as such have been strong proponents over on the 5e forum for hard, fast rules, less neccesitation of GM adjudication, and concrete difficulty numbers.
*I am genuinely terrified to hear what gaming was like for Pex at 14.

I agree that oftentimes systems with very concrete numbers don't actually have good numbers (or the process of arriving at said numbers is overly burdensome and disruptive to gameplay), and experienced and trustworthy DMs in looser systems can often arrive at fair numbers on the fly, but if you don't have those DMs, what good is that to you?

There doesn't (to me) seem to be a one right answer.

Fpr me it's a mixture of mediocre experience combined with autism, I've not had any true jerk player/GM experiences (bar the one who sae we had an illusionist, a rogue,, and a ranger, and so throw only undead at us), but I've had games grind to a halt over arguments over how difficult a check should be and good experience of resolving such arguments by going to the rulebook.

Plus I'm an autistic engineer, I like systems which are clear and consistent. While I can get behind a system that is entirely ruling driven one that's based on rules half the time an rulings half the time (like D&D 5e, which seems to think there shouldn't be a single rule about noncombat things) gets my goat.

Quertus
2020-05-01, 12:58 PM
What's the value of consistency? Oh, please, let my senile, favoritism-empowered self choose whether your Fighter hits or not each round, rather than having the foe have a consistent AC. Sounds fine, right?


Can we put the "mother may I" fallacy to rest? Every TTRPG with a GM is "mother may I."

Um… maybe every game with a bad GM?

Maybe there's other ways to run games. Maybe there's even *better* ways to run games. But let me tell you how my best tables have run games.

Player: what's the DC to X?
Player who knows that rule: it's Y.
Player: OK. *rolls*

Player: what's the DC to X?
GM (no one knows the answer): how's 15 sound?

The GM is a player for the purposes of the first example. And "looked it up" qualifies for knowing the rule. Technically, a non-GM player *could* replace the GM in the second example.

So, the only "may I?" is when someone (usually the GM) sets an artificial DC (not covered by the rules, or ignoring the rules).


well, more specifically, this musing of mine was triggered by another thread where someone was talking about one such DM having his own group since 3.0, and doing many terrible things in his group but nonetheless keeping it. so, it was mostly an isolated group, that may have had few contacts with the greater community.

for as a general case, i believe there is no excuse for lack of communication.
but it's not about excusing. it's about, perhaps, putting stuff into context.
Understanding does not mean excusing

Did I say anything about "excusing"? :smallconfused: I just don't think that this actually explains / allows understanding of the majority of cases. Heck, I don't think that the story of The Giant is clarified by the premise of this thread, for example.

EggKookoo
2020-05-01, 01:07 PM
Oh, that makes a lot of sense, so the game has a chance of being fun even if the DM isn't. That's never been a problem for me, in fact, I find the opposite is true, I prefer a game closer to MMI, because I feel a lot more freedom to express myself and to allow my players/DM to do the same in a system where the rules are fewer and far between. But I really do understand the other perspective now, and I appreciate that! Thanks so much.

I tend to push back a bit not on the idea that concrete DCs are inherently bad or that 5e is objectively good for minimizing such. I just feel the security that comes from having such things is illusory. Or at least it's a bit of "beside the point" with regard to 5e, at least at lower tiers, since the dice will laugh at any kind of DC precision.

If 5e has an objective problem in this arena, it's that bounded accuracy makes the game really random. It lessens as the PCs gain levels, but it never really goes away. I don't interpret this as a flaw -- it's just the price we pay to have bounded accuracy, and I like having it.

I have had to explain this in one form or another to my table. They get it.



Player: what's the DC to X?
Player who knows that rule: it's Y.
Player: OK. *rolls*


The reality being more like...

Player: What's the DC to X?
Player who looked something up: It's Y
DM: No, it's Z.
Rule-player: No, it's right here. It's Y.
DM: This one's Z.
[...insert one debate here...]
First player: OK. *rolls, doesn't make Z*
DM: Ok, you failed

The above has happened for me in one form or another in every game system I've played over the course of decades. In fact it happened a lot more in the early days (80s, mostly) than it happens now, largely because as I and my peers get older and mellow out, we've come to learn that it really doesn't matter.

Willie the Duck
2020-05-01, 01:20 PM
Fpr me it's a mixture of mediocre experience combined with autism, I've not had any true jerk player/GM experiences (bar the one who sae we had an illusionist, a rogue,, and a ranger, and so throw only undead at us), but I've had games grind to a halt over arguments over how difficult a check should be and good experience of resolving such arguments by going to the rulebook.

Plus I'm an autistic engineer, I like systems which are clear and consistent. While I can get behind a system that is entirely ruling driven one that's based on rules half the time an rulings half the time (like D&D 5e, which seems to think there shouldn't be a single rule about noncombat things) gets my goat.

Oh, I get the appeal. I have a team of programmers at work, two of which are on the spectrum, and I can see them voicing similar opinions. Honestly, it is hard to articulate the value that not requiring concrete, discrete rules provides (without nebulous terms like 'adaptability') except that it is one additional design 'requirement' (that isn't genuinely required) competing for attention. For the most part, my hesitance for concrete systems is that I've mostly seen two types: 1) those that provide rock-solid, concrete number... that are terrible, or 2) systems with 20 pages of table, modifiers, appeals to 'realism' (a 10 mph wind making a character with a 14 score become a 13... when the 14 is an arbitrary abstraction to begin with), all of which may end up with a concrete number after 5 minutes of research, but at the expense of the game it was supposed to serve.

Honestly, 5e skills did swing farther in 'DM-decide' direction than I think strictly necessary. I think the rulings-over-rules mantra mattered more as an attempt to defang for 5e the kind of overly intense obsession with 'RAW' that has been associated with 3e/4e, and didn't need to pervade the non-combat realm of skills and ability checks quite as much as it did.

EggKookoo
2020-05-01, 01:41 PM
Honestly, 5e skills did swing farther in 'DM-decide' direction than I think strictly necessary. I think the rulings-over-rules mantra mattered more as an attempt to defang for 5e the kind of overly intense obsession with 'RAW' that has been associated with 3e/4e, and didn't need to pervade the non-combat realm of skills and ability checks quite as much as it did.

What's the solution, though? The often-requested list of skill DCs just creates the same problem they're trying to avoid.

It seems to me the intention is that, when setting up an encounter (combat or otherwise), the DM is expected to decide the relative difficulty and derive the DC from that. If the DM wants something to be hard, he picks a DC that will make it hard for for the PC to succeed. The DMG defines "easy" as something someone with a 10 in the associated ability score and no proficiency will succeed about 50% of the time. Hard is scaled 10 DC points higher. If your PC has a 16 (+3) in the associated ability and +3 proficiency, "easy" for them is DC 16 and "hard" is DC 26.

I think the "easy" and "hard" labels in both books is set for that commoner with 10 ability score and no proficiency.

I know people say this is where MMI comes into play, since the DM is scaling the level of challenge to the player's ability, but that's how the entire game works.

Friv
2020-05-01, 02:01 PM
I did not think I was combining them. The story and game plot and being an author have not changed: all that is mostly not even covered by the rules anyway.
That's sort of my point.

It's not covered by the rules of the game that you are playing. It is very much covered by the rules of a lot of RPGs that you aren't really considering when you make your "old school vs new school" example.

I'm not answering the rest of what you wrote in detail, because as long as you have this fundamental misunderstanding about how most modern RPGs are written, it's not going to help. As long as you think that modern game systems are based around using the rules to have powers, avoid consequences and win the setting, you're not going to understand why people are playing them.

137beth
2020-05-01, 02:29 PM
I do think part of the issue is a cultural shift in what people expect D&D (and, by extension, all TTRPGs) to be.

Early D&D was based on a war game. In a war game, player characters weren't expected to have backstories, or personalities, and maybe not even names. If a character dies, it's no big deal, because you can just bring in the next nameless character.

Later on, there emerged an expectation that D&D involved telling a story, which the players are supposed to be invested in, and for which the PCs are the protagonists.

As it turns out, the two principles
a)Your character will die and be replaced every session and there's nothing you can do about it,
and
b)Your character is the protagonist in a character-driven narrative, and you have to put a lot of effort into writing details about the characters and story,

are incompatible design goals. In a character-driven story, the protagonists can't (permanently) die every two rounds, or else the story ends very quickly. The protagonists can still face failure, but failure has to mean something other than death.

Personally, I enjoy both styles of games (although when I play meat-grinder type games I usually do it in the form of rogue-like video games rather than TTRPGs). But it remains very difficult to have both at the same time.

Zarrgon
2020-05-01, 02:50 PM
I'm not answering the rest of what you wrote in detail, because as long as you have this fundamental misunderstanding about how most modern RPGs are written, it's not going to help. As long as you think that modern game systems are based around using the rules to have powers, avoid consequences and win the setting, you're not going to understand why people are playing them.

I was never talking about how games are written? I'm talking about gamer culture: the way people choose to play a game.



Early D&D was based on a war game. In a war game, player characters weren't expected to have backstories, or personalities, and maybe not even names. If a character dies, it's no big deal, because you can just bring in the next nameless character.

This is not true for every old school game. Again, like I said, right from the start you had the split between the Roll players and the Role players. And it's no different today in 2020: there are plenty of players that want noting more then pointless endless combat encounters from D&D.



The reality being more like...

Player: What's the DC to X?
Player who looked something up: It's Y
DM: No, it's Z.
Rule-player: No, it's right here. It's Y.
DM: This one's Z.
[...insert one debate here...]
First player: OK. *rolls, doesn't make Z*
DM: Ok, you failed

I see the real problem as:


Player: What's the DC to X?
Player who looked something up something vague and generic in one book: It's Y
DM: On it's Z, there are things that you don't know about effecting the DC
Players: But it must always be Y, the rules say so!
DM: Look here there are a list of modifyers and rules about how a DM sets the DC..
Players: But it must always be Y, the rules say so!
[insert game disruption here]

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-01, 03:11 PM
I was never talking about how games are written? I'm talking about gamer culture: the way people choose to play a game.



This is not true for every old school game. Again, like I said, right from the start you had the split between the Roll players and the Role players. And it's no different today in 2020: there are plenty of players that want noting more then pointless endless combat encounters from D&D.

]

The difference in 2020 as compared to historically is which way the majority leans as influenced by the prevailing culture within the hobby. Hundreds of thousands (or millions even) of people aren't regularly watching games about "noting more then pointless endless combat encounters from D&D", and then then bringing the inspiration watching such a game provides to their own games.

Pex
2020-05-01, 04:37 PM
Wait, hold on, the "Mother May I" effect? I'm sorry, I've never heard of that before. Is that the implication that RPGs are trending away from specific, codified granular rulesets and trending towards systems where the PCs have more freedom in the world in exchange for the DM having to do more mechanical legwork to make every action fit into the system? I see this as a good thing, it frees up the table to tell ore diverse stories in a system because they're not bound by granular mechanics, and it was the DM's job before to fill in the blanks anyway... is my understanding wrong, or is there some other reason why people believe that this is a negative trend?

Because DnD's always been a game of Mother May I, right? You say what you want to do and something establishes a condition to make that happen. Are people complaining that that's a human and not a book?

It comes from the idea that the ability of my character to do something in 5E D&D depends on who is DM that day not my build choices. It's a reflection of playing more than one campaign with different DMs. It lead to me playing a 10 ST warlock not proficient in Athletics climbing any tree I wanted to just because I wanted to while in another game my 18 ST proficient in Athletics paladin had to roll to against DC 15 and still another game my 10 ST monk not proficient in Athletics had to roll against DC 20.

There are no guidelines in ability (skill) checks so the DM has to make them up. 5E says what score to give when something is easy or hard but doesn't define what makes some easy or hard. What one DM says is easy another will say is hard. Where one DM says no need to roll another DM says you do roll with a DC 10 but a third DM says you roll with DC 15. It's the same task but different resolutions. I don't know what my character can do until the DM says I can do it. DM (Mother) May I.

Contrast to 3E. 3E has defined DCs for skill checks. Players know what they are. They know what they can or can't do by percentage chance and guarantee through Take 10/Take 20 with their own build choices via skill points. Of course it is impossible to account for every possible scenario. That's not needed. It's enough the benchmarks are there so that the DM can determine the closest analogy and apply that DC. The tables also provide help on what to do with conditions that alter the base, either adding/subtracting to the DC or give a modifier to the die roll. The numbers are set regardless of campaign. In those particular cases where the DC is DM fiat different than the tables it's by purposeful design because whatever that Thing is, it's special. The player/character knows it's special precisely because it's not working like it normally should. For example, it's DC 15 to climb a tree. If the DC to climb a tree is 20 or DC No, the character knows it's not a normal tree. Maybe it's a treant. Maybe it's a dryad's home. Whatever it is, it's not a normal tree.

Telok
2020-05-01, 04:40 PM
I
I see the real problem as:

Player: What's the DC to X?
Player who looked something up something vague and generic in one book: It's Y
DM: On it's Z, there are things that you don't know about effecting the DC
Players: But it must always be Y, the rules say so!
DM: Look here there are a list of modifyers and rules about how a DM sets the DC..
Players: But it must always be Y, the rules say so!
[insert game disruption here]

I experienced the problem of the DM reading the DMG, going all "roll to tie shoes" on us, and eventually rage quit because the group started going to crazy lengths to avoid dice rolling.

The bit where it said "easy = dc 10" meant something different to him than to you, and probably something different than to the writers. The game backed him up so climbing a rope ladder was dc 10.

Pex
2020-05-01, 04:51 PM
Player: What's the DC to X?
Player who looked something up something vague and generic in one book: It's Y
DM: On it's Z, there are things that you don't know about effecting the DC
Players: But it must always be Y, the rules say so!
DM: Look here there are a list of modifyers and rules about how a DM sets the DC..
Players: But it must always be Y, the rules say so!
[insert game disruption here]

The problem here is the player not the game. It's perfectly fine the DC is different than the table because of reasons. Perhaps those reasons are a clue to something.

Player: What's the DC to X?
Player looks up table: Y
DM: For this X it's Z.
Player: Why?
DM: Do you investigate for a reason?

Friv
2020-05-01, 04:53 PM
I was never talking about how games are written? I'm talking about gamer culture: the way people choose to play a game.

The story and game plot and being an author have not changed: all that is mostly not even covered by the rules anyway.

I rest my case.

Twelvetrees
2020-05-01, 06:23 PM
...

Contrast to 3E. 3E has defined DCs for skill checks. Players know what they are. They know what they can or can't do by percentage chance and guarantee through Take 10/Take 20 with their own build choices via skill points. Of course it is impossible to account for every possible scenario. That's not needed. It's enough the benchmarks are there so that the DM can determine the closest analogy and apply that DC. The tables also provide help on what to do with conditions that alter the base, either adding/subtracting to the DC or give a modifier to the die roll. The numbers are set regardless of campaign. In those particular cases where the DC is DM fiat different than the tables it's by purposeful design because whatever that Thing is, it's special. The player/character knows it's special precisely because it's not working like it normally should. For example, it's DC 15 to climb a tree. If the DC to climb a tree is 20 or DC No, the character knows it's not a normal tree. Maybe it's a treant. Maybe it's a dryad's home. Whatever it is, it's not a normal tree.

Sure, 3e had tables for values you could use - but only if people bothered to use them.

If they were used, you had more consistency in DCs, but that came with either needing to have those tables memorized or to pause to look up the values. Or the DM had to spend time looking up the table values in preparing for the game. If the tables weren't used, the DC consistency took a hit, but you also likely had a faster and more accessible game.

I think that was a trade-off that the vast majority of players were willing to make with 5e.

And at a certain level, I don't think it's reasonable for DMs to have to prepare for a game and make sure that


In those particular cases where the DC is DM fiat different than the tables it's by purposeful design because whatever that Thing is, it's special.


Is it cool when you know that is the case? Yes. But if the game is to be approachable for someone to run, that expectation makes it more daunting.

5e tries to be more accessible than previous editions. Removing the need to memorize or refer to DC tables helps to accomplish that.

Related to that and to address the overall thread topic, I think accessibility of the game has been the largest shift I've seen in the culture of the game - so many more people are playing D&D or are willing to give it a try.

Zarrgon
2020-05-01, 06:45 PM
I rest my case.

Pk, I'm glad you conceded and saw that I was right. Good debate.



There was an assumption of being able to (eventually, after multiple tries) get to reasonably high level, and then be somewhat resilient to sudden death. Else the entire subsystem of turning into feudal lord, complete with castle and followers, never would be needed.

Well, for AD&D a character sort of Retired after say 12th level: the expectation was to settle down and be a lord. Though the awesome BECMI D&D rules had the Lord character being an epic adventurer all the way to 36th level, and then becoming an Immortal Being.



The Tomb of Horrors, the iconic ‘Deathtrap’ module, which cemented the notion of killer DM and DM vs. player gaming, was never intended to be the model for how normative gaming was supposed to be. It was a tournament module, where there was supposed to be competitive play for prizes, with ‘last man standing (with the most treasure)’ was the goal. TSR did themselves a huge disservice by releasing this as the first published module

D&D has always had three set ups:

1.The pick up game: bring a random character, bring a random adventure and make a couple of hours of fun (The Tomb of Horrors fits right here).

2.The DM makes a vague lite campaign setting of maybe a kingdom or two and the players make lite backstories and the group of player characters go on mostly unrelated random adventures. (AKA most TV shows before 2000 or so like say the Original Star Trek. Episodic TV.)

3.The DM and the players both make grand epic detailed and intertwined everything to make a massive role playing world experience. (AKA most modern serial TV shows )



Much of the ‘DM-Player Arms Race’ stuff (such as thieves’ listening at doors, so there have to be ear-seeker monsters to make that a bad idea) was in fact an arms race between Gary and his son Ernie and his friend Rob Kuntz (who rose to high level and wealth because Rob kept ‘breaking’ the game by outthinking Gary’s setup). Again TSR did a disservice by not just throwing such stuff into the game books without further comment.

True, but it was the way of things at the time.




Roleplaying aspects to the game were there from the very start. Sure the game evolved from Chainmail, but also from Diplomacy, and a nonpublished abstract city-running game system called Braunstein.

True. And remember people were doing heavy detailed complex role playing outside the rules...just like in today of 2020...right from the start too.



High power, pseudo-invincible PCs occurred right from the very start. Robilar being a great example, but also amongst the wider game base. Certainly people taking Gods, Demigods, and Heroes and treating it as another monster manual is the iconic case, but just the inclusion of artifacts in the game created the desire to obtain and use them (and DMs certainly handed them out. The Arduin Grimoire was one of the earliest well-known third party supplements, and it was known for being a way to play Exalted-like demigods two decades ahead of that game.

True



The Mythology of how the game played out back in the day has taken on something of a life of its own. ItÂ’s useful to remember that things like Knights of the Dinner Table and such are parodies.[/list]
I guess my main point is that playstyle was highly variable right from the start, much of the ‘DM vs. Player’ mentality was massively overblown (not unreasonably though, TSR/Gary shooting themselves in the foot multiple times, reputation-wise), Monty-haul or ‘playing on easy mode’ gaming was there right from the beginning, and it has always been as easy or hard as people made it.



True.

King of Nowhere
2020-05-01, 07:11 PM
Okay, but in context of what we're talking about, I don't mean using magic. I mean flexing muscles. There's no PC build that can lift a 5-ton elephant.



just want to point out that there is, without even using any cheese.

half orc barbarian 20, start with 20 STR, add +5 for leveling, +5 for wish, you get 30, get a belt of strenght +6 for 36, there is a feat that makes your rage give and extra +2 to str, take it, in addition to the normal +8 you get at level 20 you get a total +10 when raging, totaling 46. Add in a potion of enlarge person, it provides another +2, and you also get double carrying capacity for the large size.

According to the carrying capacity table, you can now lift 17 tons above your head. the elephant is not exactly light for you, but you certainly can pick it up with one hand without straining.
then again, you cannot juggle it, because juggling is dex-based, and you can't use dex abilities while raging. but i'm sure there is a feat for it.

Friv
2020-05-01, 07:25 PM
just want to point out that there is, without even using any cheese.

half orc barbarian 20, start with 20 STR, add +5 for leveling, +5 for wish, you get 30, get a belt of strenght +6 for 36, there is a feat that makes your rage give and extra +2 to str, take it, in addition to the normal +8 you get at level 20 you get a total +10 when raging, totaling 46. Add in a potion of enlarge person, it provides another +2, and you also get double carrying capacity for the large size.

According to the carrying capacity table, you can now lift 17 tons above your head. the elephant is not exactly light for you, but you certainly can pick it up with one hand without straining.

As a minor quibble, there's a lot of magic in there. Belt of Strength and Wish are giving you +11 Str, so without magic you're only at 35 Str. That gives you a heavy load of 3,200 lbs, which is hilariously huge, but not elephant huge. And you definitely can't use a Potion of Enlarge, because that's the point of the original thread - magic allows you to bypass some of those concerns, but an impossible thing is impossible unless you've been given specific permissions that render it possible.

(That's actually a big thing in Powered by the Apocalypse games, which gets overlooked sometimes; you can't do an impossible thing. It's really important to system resolution, since the usual difficulty metric runs in consequences, rather than in chances of success, so if you don't keep that in mind you end up thinking the players can just try anything and it'll be fine.)

SunderedWorldDM
2020-05-01, 07:33 PM
It comes from the idea that the ability of my character to do something in 5E D&D depends on who is DM that day not my build choices. It's a reflection of playing more than one campaign with different DMs. It lead to me playing a 10 ST warlock not proficient in Athletics climbing any tree I wanted to just because I wanted to while in another game my 18 ST proficient in Athletics paladin had to roll to against DC 15 and still another game my 10 ST monk not proficient in Athletics had to roll against DC 20.

There are no guidelines in ability (skill) checks so the DM has to make them up. 5E says what score to give when something is easy or hard but doesn't define what makes some easy or hard. What one DM says is easy another will say is hard. Where one DM says no need to roll another DM says you do roll with a DC 10 but a third DM says you roll with DC 15. It's the same task but different resolutions. I don't know what my character can do until the DM says I can do it. DM (Mother) May I.

Contrast to 3E. 3E has defined DCs for skill checks. Players know what they are. They know what they can or can't do by percentage chance and guarantee through Take 10/Take 20 with their own build choices via skill points. Of course it is impossible to account for every possible scenario. That's not needed. It's enough the benchmarks are there so that the DM can determine the closest analogy and apply that DC. The tables also provide help on what to do with conditions that alter the base, either adding/subtracting to the DC or give a modifier to the die roll. The numbers are set regardless of campaign. In those particular cases where the DC is DM fiat different than the tables it's by purposeful design because whatever that Thing is, it's special. The player/character knows it's special precisely because it's not working like it normally should. For example, it's DC 15 to climb a tree. If the DC to climb a tree is 20 or DC No, the character knows it's not a normal tree. Maybe it's a treant. Maybe it's a dryad's home. Whatever it is, it's not a normal tree.
In my eyes, that's the same as saying "I like published adventures because if I make a ranger that fights goblins and this adventure has goblins I will get the same chance to fight goblins at any table I'm at, and if I make a character who's not good at fighting goblins I know that that will be a hardship in advance." But even at a specific table running that game, the goblins are always different, the only thing you can control is whether you will plan to fight goblins or not. This is how I see that argument: the goblins, in this place, are DCs. Every DM will come up with their own ways of designing and using them, and many will make changes moment-to-moment even from what's written. Goblins are idiosyncratic, and people don't complain when Bob's Goblins behave differently than Alice's Goblins, so why is it different for DCs? Everything is handled differently from table to table, if it weren't, DnD would be a meatspace MMORPG. (Though that's what some people are here for, so that's okay!)

Quertus
2020-05-01, 07:41 PM
The reality being more like...

Player: What's the DC to X?
Player who looked something up: It's Y
DM: No, it's Z.
Rule-player: No, it's right here. It's Y.
DM: This one's Z.
[...insert one debate here...]
First player: OK. *rolls, doesn't make Z*
DM: Ok, you failed

The above has happened for me in one form or another in every game system I've played over the course of decades. In fact it happened a lot more in the early days (80s, mostly) than it happens now, largely because as I and my peers get older and mellow out, we've come to learn that it really doesn't matter.


I see the real problem as:


Player: What's the DC to X?
Player who looked something up something vague and generic in one book: It's Y
DM: On it's Z, there are things that you don't know about effecting the DC
Players: But it must always be Y, the rules say so!
DM: Look here there are a list of modifyers and rules about how a DM sets the DC..
Players: But it must always be Y, the rules say so!
[insert game disruption here]

So, if *the GM* knows the DC, then it's just the three-step I originally stated, with the GM as the "player who knows", like I stated they could be.

There are 2 (and ˝) common fail states.

One, the player who "knows" is wrong. And this can definitely include the GM. At my best tables, they get corrected, learning hopefully happens, the game continues on an upbeat.

(˝, the "correcting" player is wrong. The original player explains the correct rules / lookup happens, hopefully learning happens, the game continues on an upbeat.)

Second, the GM (often me) has declared this thing a "special snowflake" (or whatever the neutral version of that term is). So, to use me as an example:

Player: what's…
Me: it's X.
Player who knows the rules: shouldn't it be…
Player who knows the rules & me, simultaneously: Y
Me: usually, yes. But not this time.

And then the game continues much more carefully and "eyes open", because the players know that the game is afoot. I very intentionally use obscure rules etc to periodically create things that violate expectations - but that still follow the rules of the game - to reward players who engage the game that way.

Again, this is the way that things happen at my *best* tables. Neither of y'all's examples sound like better gaming experiences to my ears (EDIT: and, if you disagree with this assessment, I'm all ears), so I'll continue to uphold my best tables as stellar examples of "good gaming practices".

(And, if your games are suboptimal, are you asking yourself "why is that"? Myself, I'm a belligerent social optimizer, and will happily swing the clue-by-four at players and GMs alike until they agree to at least try to optimize the gaming environment. See my stories of "sidelining people who refused to 'balance to the table'" for a prime example of my clue-by-four weapon specialization. :smallwink:)

Pex
2020-05-01, 08:00 PM
In my eyes, that's the same as saying "I like published adventures because if I make a ranger that fights goblins and this adventure has goblins I will get the same chance to fight goblins at any table I'm at, and if I make a character who's not good at fighting goblins I know that that will be a hardship in advance." But even at a specific table running that game, the goblins are always different, the only thing you can control is whether you will plan to fight goblins or not. This is how I see that argument: the goblins, in this place, are DCs. Every DM will come up with their own ways of designing and using them, and many will make changes moment-to-moment even from what's written. Goblins are idiosyncratic, and people don't complain when Bob's Goblins behave differently than Alice's Goblins, so why is it different for DCs? Everything is handled differently from table to table, if it weren't, DnD would be a meatspace MMORPG. (Though that's what some people are here for, so that's okay!)

Not the same thing at all. The gameworld is different by the DM by default. It's supposed to be. The rules shouldn't be. In my 5E game kobolds are generally nice guys. The Master of Undead, a quasi-deity, is Lawful Good who turned down being a deity so as to steal the portfolio from those who would use it for harm. Neither changes the combat statistics of kobolds and skeletons, but nothing stops me from having the party meet a friendly Wight who talks to them.

In 5E every non-magical plate mail is AC 18. All non-magical long swords deal 1d8 damage one handed. Every DC of all class abilities is 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency. Every Bless spell cast at 1st level gives up to three creatures +1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws. 5E has consistent rules all over the place. Why must ability (skill) checks be the one thing that depends on who is DM that day?

Obviously a DM can change whatever he wants, DC tables or no DC tables, but if you're going to change everything why have rules at all? If you're changing everything that's the epitome of Mother May I.

SunderedWorldDM
2020-05-01, 08:32 PM
In 5E every non-magical plate mail is AC 18. All non-magical long swords deal 1d8 damage one handed. Every DC of all class abilities is 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency. Every Bless spell cast at 1st level gives up to three creatures +1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws. 5E has consistent rules all over the place. Why must ability (skill) checks be the one thing that depends on who is DM that day?

Obviously a DM can change whatever he wants, DC tables or no DC tables, but if you're going to change everything why have rules at all? If you're changing everything that's the epitome of Mother May I.
Well then we get into separating world from mechanics. It's pretty clear that goblin culture is up to the DM. Goblin tactics are also up to the DM, despite Volo's. Then a DM can write up custom goblin stats, and at that point on, things get shaky. Are the goblins still "consistent"? If the DM uses the same stat block all the time, sure. And then what about the terrain when you fight a goblin? There's no chapter in the PHB for "goblin mud pit filled with razorblades", the DM will have to cobble together rules. What if they make up a rule, every turn the player Dashes in the pit they take a d4 damage from the razorblades? That's not written down anywhere and depends on the DM, is that not a "fair" game system? What if the DM decides the goblins always do 6 damage no matter what? Is that not allowed, can the DM not make that ruling for the sake of speeding up combat? What if the goblins have a custom magic item, not from the DMG? What if when goblins cast Bless, they add a d8? Where is the line between the DM having control over the game world and the rules?

Also, that explanation doesn't serve to say WHY MMI-style play is bad, it just sort of glorifies the rules as a permanent touchstone. What makes that a good thing? Why shouldn't a DM have these sorts of levers to pull to control the feel of their games?

By the way, nice sig! Rather pertinent...

EggKookoo
2020-05-01, 08:41 PM
just want to point out that there is, without even using any cheese.

Sorry, I meant in 5e. But for 3e, change it to "juggling castles."

Afghanistan
2020-05-01, 09:29 PM
The reality being more like...

Player: What's the DC to X?
Player who looked something up: It's Y
DM: No, it's Z.
Rule-player: No, it's right here. It's Y.
DM: This one's Z.
[...insert one debate here...]
First player: OK. *rolls, doesn't make Z*
DM: Ok, you failed



I see the real problem as:


Player: What's the DC to X?
Player who looked something up something vague and generic in one book: It's Y
DM: On it's Z, there are things that you don't know about effecting the DC
Players: But it must always be Y, the rules say so!
DM: Look here there are a list of modifyers and rules about how a DM sets the DC..
Players: But it must always be Y, the rules say so!



The problem here is the player not the game. It's perfectly fine the DC is different than the table because of reasons. Perhaps those reasons are a clue to something.

Player: What's the DC to X?
Player looks up table: Y
DM: For[I] this X it's Z.
Player: Why?
DM: Do you investigate for a reason?



Player: what's…
Me: it's X.
Player who knows the rules: shouldn't it be…
Player who knows the rules & me, simultaneously: Y
Me: usually, yes. But not this time.

Holy hell, I am so grateful my player's don't second guess my knowledge of the rules when the DM screen is in front of me and it actually has some common rules and references included in it so I just KNOW the DC and can work it out from there rather simply. With me, it's

Me: Roll a *whatever check/roll/throw*
Player: *roll*
Me: You Pass/Fail.
Player: Nice/Lame...
(Continue like this for another 7 hours)

These player's KNOW the DC tables, they KNOW when a pass or a fail is, they KNOW that there are scenarios when the DC might not be the same, or I might not be using things the same way, or I might have established circumstances that would alter the scenario as a component of the adventure and they accept that these things just happen as the nature of a game. They understand that an adjusted DC or things changing isn't me cheating, it's them just not seeing the whole picture, a picture I generally feel proud of revealing towards the end of an adventure, or maybe mid way to present a side objective to make things more favorable towards them.

ExLibrisMortis
2020-05-01, 09:34 PM
The game flows smoother when you're asking a person, who's capable of creativity and flexible thinking, instead of a book that tries and fails to conform to every situation, how to resolve actions mechanically.
Two things:
(1) It takes a lot of practice to be that person who can make up sensible numbers on the fly. I've had inexperienced DMs declare off-the-cuff that those mundane clothes (low quality, they were beggar disguises) were 20 gp each, when peasant's clothes are 1 sp for an outfit. Being a factor 200 out isn't likely to happen on DCs, but reducing the chance of success from 40% to 15% is definitely an option, just by picking a 20 instead of a 15. That's going to hurt PC performance in a way that's not really predictable or something the character or the player can do something about. And that's just a DM mis-estimating a DC; it gets worse if there's malice involved.

In fact, having a game with consistent rules and guidelines helps and teaches DMs to come up with DCs on the fly. To quote the Giant: "I want tools to use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want". Note that he was talking about 3.5 Diplomacy (which has difficult-to-gauge DCs and results), and 5e pretty much has the same problems that 3.5 Diplomacy had, just with every skill.

(2) The game flows even smoother when people can figure out the DC for themselves, and figure out whether they want to attempt an action, without the DM having to feed them information all the time. Perhaps they can even make the roll and just get on with it, having only to inform the DM of what they have decided to try and whether that succeeded. Granted, you need pretty advanced players to make this work, but it's worth it. (Note: don't do this when you don't have the floor, because it will get confusing if you do.)

Zarrgon
2020-05-01, 09:37 PM
In 5E every non-magical plate mail is AC 18. All non-magical long swords deal 1d8 damage one handed. Every DC of all class abilities is 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency. Every Bless spell cast at 1st level gives up to three creatures +1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws. 5E has consistent rules all over the place. Why must ability (skill) checks be the one thing that depends on who is DM that day?


I'm not a 5E expert...but can't all that be changed? It's sure true with 1,2,3,and 3.5 E. A player can say "it is always 18" all day long, but I can show them the dozen ways that can be changed or altered.

It's like the player that demands "orcs must only use clubs" and as DM I say "they can use any weapon". This was just a couple games ago: a player got all mad and ranted and raved as some orcs were using blowguns and he was demanding that orcs would "never" use that weapon.

So it a lot more that thinking X must always be X all the time that is wrong.

EggKookoo
2020-05-01, 09:43 PM
Holy hell, I am so grateful my player's don't second guess my knowledge of the rules

FWIW, my example was an abstraction pulled from distant memory. My players don't give a crap what DC I tell them. The moment they throw the d20, they're on to thinking about what they're going to do next if it succeeds or fails. Nitpicking DCs -- ain't nobody got time for that ****.

Partly I think this is because my players trust me. Partly it's because I think they know how probability (and clumps/streaks) work.

NigelWalmsley
2020-05-01, 10:11 PM
Is that not allowed, can the DM not make that ruling for the sake of speeding up combat?

"Not allowed" is the wrong framework for looking at things. It's not like there's a D&D police who will come to your house and arrest you if you make the wrong rulings. The question is about what's good for the game. Generally speaking, consistent rules are good, because they allow PCs to make predictable and meaningful decisions about the world. If goblins to arbitrary things that the DM makes up on the spot, you can't make meaningful tactical decisions in a fight with goblins, because you have no way of knowing what decisions are smart or not. Is it a good idea to gank the goblin shaman who's casting Bless? Maybe it is, if the DM has decided that goblins get a souped-up Bless. But maybe it's not, because the DM has decided they get a nerfed one. If the rules are arbitrary and subject to modification at the DM's whim, you can't meaningfully roleplay, because you have no way of evaluating decisions, making it impossible to meaningfully answer the question "what would my character do".


(1) It takes a lot of practice to be that person who can make up sensible numbers on the fly.

Yes! It turns out that rules and settings are complicated. It's true that your off-the-cuff decision will be specialized to work well for whatever setting it is you're working with, and that will make it better. But it will also have much less care and effort put into it than a general solution crafted by professionals who have the opportunity to test their product. And, generally, the margins will be such that you are better off deferring to the experts. Making robust systems is hard. Just ask anyone who has ever had to make any kind of system.


In fact, having a game with consistent rules and guidelines helps and teaches DMs to come up with DCs on the fly.

This is also true. It's much easier to generalize from examples than it is to make things up whole cloth. If the game provides you with Listen DCs that cover a broad range of scenarios and produce reasonable results, and you use that as the basis for making up Listen DCs for novel scenarios, it's much more likely your DCs will be reasonable than if you just make things up whole cloth. It's also more likely that your DCs will be consistent.


(2) The game flows even smoother when people can figure out the DC for themselves, and figure out whether they want to attempt an action, without the DM having to feed them information all the time.

I would add that it can, perhaps counter-intuitively, make creativity easier. If the rules provide you with a framework for how climbing walls, opening locks, and bribing guards works, it's much easier to have a sandbox adventure where PCs can combine resources to come up with their own solutions to problems. Whereas if the DM has to make up everything on the spot, the game shuts down every time you try something he didn't think of (it's the same general reason that the Monster Manual is the best D&D book).

vasilidor
2020-05-01, 10:33 PM
in situations where the DC is higher than normal, I have learned to ask why. sometimes it is a thing that resulted as a consequence of player actions (in a way that makes sense). i.e: the normal dc for a jump that far is 20, but right now its 50. I ask why, because the the answer is the solid fog spell (cast by our sorcerer) has not yet gone away yet.
other times it gets that way for no reason than the dm wants us to fail, going as far as to make up a thing on the spot to make us fail when we ask why. i.e: the dm has decided that since i would have a fairly easy way to cross with my jump check and he wants me to fall down the hole, he puts a gravity enhancer device at the bottom of the pit (altering the dungeon on the spot).
I have played with both, and in my early days had been the more obnoxious one (i have learned better).
there are some games that making things arbitrarily harder may as well be the equivalent of "rocks fall, everyone dies", such as shadowrun 3rd edition. such situations are not fun.

Pex
2020-05-01, 10:41 PM
Well then we get into separating world from mechanics. It's pretty clear that goblin culture is up to the DM. Goblin tactics are also up to the DM, despite Volo's. Then a DM can write up custom goblin stats, and at that point on, things get shaky. Are the goblins still "consistent"? If the DM uses the same stat block all the time, sure. And then what about the terrain when you fight a goblin? There's no chapter in the PHB for "goblin mud pit filled with razorblades", the DM will have to cobble together rules. What if they make up a rule, every turn the player Dashes in the pit they take a d4 damage from the razorblades? That's not written down anywhere and depends on the DM, is that not a "fair" game system? What if the DM decides the goblins always do 6 damage no matter what? Is that not allowed, can the DM not make that ruling for the sake of speeding up combat? What if the goblins have a custom magic item, not from the DMG? What if when goblins cast Bless, they add a d8? Where is the line between the DM having control over the game world and the rules?

Also, that explanation doesn't serve to say WHY MMI-style play is bad, it just sort of glorifies the rules as a permanent touchstone. What makes that a good thing? Why shouldn't a DM have these sorts of levers to pull to control the feel of their games?

By the way, nice sig! Rather pertinent...

I wrote why it was bad earlier. It leads to inconsistency among the games. I don't know what my character can do until I want to do it. It's a bother to me my warlock could climb any tree he wants to because he wants to, but my paladin couldn't and can fail to climb it. My monk had it worse and couldn't climb trees unless I rolled a Natural 20. Proficiency, strength, doesn't matter. My ability to climb a tree depended on who was DM. It goes for any skill.

Quertus
2020-05-02, 12:09 AM
Holy hell, I am so grateful my player's don't second guess my knowledge of the rules when the DM screen is in front of me and it actually has some common rules and references included in it so I just KNOW the DC and can work it out from there rather simply. With me, it's

Me: Roll a *whatever check/roll/throw*
Player: *roll*
Me: You Pass/Fail.
Player: Nice/Lame...
(Continue like this for another 7 hours)

These player's KNOW the DC tables, they KNOW when a pass or a fail is, they KNOW that there are scenarios when the DC might not be the same, or I might not be using things the same way, or I might have established circumstances that would alter the scenario as a component of the adventure and they accept that these things just happen as the nature of a game. They understand that an adjusted DC or things changing isn't me cheating, it's them just not seeing the whole picture, a picture I generally feel proud of revealing towards the end of an adventure, or maybe mid way to present a side objective to make things more favorable towards them.


My players don't give a crap what DC I tell them. Nitpicking DCs -- ain't nobody got time for that ****.

Partly I think this is because my players trust me.


in situations where the DC is higher than normal, I have learned to ask why.

"Asking why" is exactly the mindset I want to engender. "Blind faith", "we don't need to think, it'll get explained later", and "shrug, details aren't important" are antithetical to the engaged, caring about the adventure, thinking and investigating people I prefer to see at my tables.

So… (and I'm having trouble even asking this) do you really *want* players who are trained to be oblivious to subtle details, who don't care about things and don't think before the big reveal? Do you really want blind faith that allows mistakes to snowball, potentially for sessions or even years before they are caught?

I lack the… mental flexibility… to look beyond the disadvantages I know to understand what possible advantages such gaming culture could have.

So, those of you who are extolling such cultures (or even anyone who just understands and can clarify for me)… why? What advantages do such cultures grant? Why would a social optimizer *choose* a culture of willing blindness, or passive mindlessness, over more attentive and engaged players?


I wrote why it was bad earlier. It leads to inconsistency among the games. I don't know what my character can do until I want to do it. It's a bother to me my warlock could climb any tree he wants to because he wants to, but my paladin couldn't and can fail to climb it. My monk had it worse and couldn't climb trees unless I rolled a Natural 20. Proficiency, strength, doesn't matter. My ability to climb a tree depended on who was DM. It goes for any skill.

That moment when you realize that random children IRL are so much more capable than your "trained" fantasy adventurers.

Bohandas
2020-05-02, 12:48 AM
Nintendo hard as I understand it (probably from TVTropes as well, although it's been a while) was a holdover from the arcade days. In an arcade game you play until you die. To make the most money off of these games the player had to die just as quickly as possibly, yet just slow enough that they didn't feel cheated and instead would want to try again. If it's possible for a really good player to play for much longer that's a plus, because people will see them play and figure that kind of fun is within their grasp, if only they line up their quarters and get practicing. Because arcade cabinets in the late 80's had the power to do stuff like primitive 3D games and home consoles and PC's did not, they were the best way to enjoy gaming, the pro scene of their time. Early 90's games simply inherited a whole bunch of industry standards and conventional wisdom from them. People come up with games based on which existing games are popular, and people buy games based on what they have played before. It takes time for everyone to realize things might be more fun if you handle them differently.


I think that's also why a lot of games have permadeath and other limitations on saving. Holdovers from machines that lacked the ability to save either because they were public or because they were too primitive to store and retrieve enough data.


There are no guidelines in ability (skill) checks so the DM has to make them up. 5E says what score to give when something is easy or hard but doesn't define what makes some easy or hard. What one DM says is easy another will say is hard. Where one DM says no need to roll another DM says you do roll with a DC 10 but a third DM says you roll with DC 15. It's the same task but different resolutions. I don't know what my character can do until the DM says I can do it. DM (Mother) May I.


I agree. In that format you're basically just kids playing cops and robbers in the back yard

"Bang! you're dead."
"nuh-uh"
"uh-huh"
"nuh-uh"
"uh-huh"
"nuh-uh"
"uh-huh"
"nuh-uh"
"uh-huh"
"nuh-uh"
"uh-huh"
"nuh-uh"
"uh-huh"
"nuh-uh"
"uh-huh"
"nuh-uh"
"uh-huh"
"nuh-uh"
"uh-huh"

and I can easily do that without a fifty dollar rulebook

Afghanistan
2020-05-02, 01:12 AM
"Asking why" is exactly the mindset I want to engender. "Blind faith", "we don't need to think, it'll get explained later", and "shrug, details aren't important" are antithetical to the engaged, caring about the adventure, thinking and investigating people I prefer to see at my tables.

So… (and I'm having trouble even asking this) do you really *want* players who are trained to be oblivious to subtle details, who don't care about things and don't think before the big reveal? Do you really want blind faith that allows mistakes to snowball, potentially for sessions or even years before they are caught?

Well this is a bold assumption.

For one, I am not asking for "blind faith", I am asking for genuine "trust" that I know what I am doing on some level. I am not going to claim that I've got running a game down to a science, if nothing else this is something I believe can never be done, however I am also asking my players to imagine for one moment that I am not actively looking for a "gotcha!" moment to kill their character that could have genuinely taken them anywhere from all of 10 seconds to generate, to an entire week to compare options and thing about what they wanted to do with the system to play what they wanted to play with the allocated resources.

And secondly, I like to believe I go above and beyond in walking my player's through my line of reasoning by sending them the notes for any adventures I've sent them through after they've completed it so they can recap what they went through and, in a mechanical sense, to know I didn't screw them. Excessive? Yes, but my enjoyment of the game comes from the design and manipulation of the system to present a dangerous, yet entertaining adventure for a group of 20 to 40 year olds that want to sit around for upwards to 12 hours, rolling plastic polyhedrons, so sending my player's these notes is extremely satisfying for me.

Furthermore, I'd like to believe that errors and mistakes can be corrected, regardless of how small or large they might be. Say for example, I make a mistake with the math of a DC, or my player doesn't understand the math, or whatever and either I, or they point it out to me. While I will have egg on my face for a brief moment, I'd like to believe I am close enough to my player's that such minute mistakes can be easily resolved or repaired. What if such an error results in a player death you might be asking? Well, it's easy enough to just say the party find's a scroll of Raise Dead (in our setting there is even a special modifier for it called "auto-casting" that just allows someone, even with no magical training to use it) and to tell the player not to worry about the level loss or ability score loss, and just like that you've immediately fixed the error and nobody at the table cares that you ever made one. I've learned to be more cautious with my math around save-or-die effects, and the player goes back to having a good time with their Barbarian, or Fighter, or Wizard, or whatever.



I lack the… mental flexibility… to look beyond the disadvantages I know to understand what possible advantages such gaming culture could have.

Right, that is a you thing. YOU lack the mental flexibility.


So, those of you who are extolling such cultures (or even anyone who just understands and can clarify for me)… why? What advantages do such cultures grant? Why would a social optimizer *choose* a culture of willing blindness, or passive mindlessness, over more attentive and engaged players?

Because there is no "willing blindness" or "passive mindlessness" and in actuality, you're just incapable of seeing that people are evidently capable of engaging in different ways because of your admitted mental rigidness.

But for a moment, let's pretend that you're correct. Let's suspend all logic and go with your idea that people that trust their GM to not screw them are somehow engaging in "passive mindlessness". You have intentionally established a scenario where the game breaks down into a state of debate and disagreement over how the game is actually supposed to be played, instead of actual gameplay. In essence, your position that this is somehow "mindless" and that rigorous thought and hyper attention to detail, results in a state where less of the game is being played is the ideal and somehow MORE gameplay. Every action, every description, every statement you make is put under a magnifying lens even if it is as innocuous as "make an X check". If, this is your goal, I am legitimately left wondering why you are even interested in playing the game in the first place, if all you want to do is just have a 8 hour discussion on how the game is played, with 4 hours of gameplay, instead of 12 hours of gameplay? Why not simply spend all day debating the rules of the game on an internet forum such as this one instead of actually playing the game? :smallconfused:

Anonymouswizard
2020-05-02, 05:17 AM
I wrote why it was bad earlier. It leads to inconsistency among the games. I don't know what my character can do until I want to do it. It's a bother to me my warlock could climb any tree he wants to because he wants to, but my paladin couldn't and can fail to climb it. My monk had it worse and couldn't climb trees unless I rolled a Natural 20. Proficiency, strength, doesn't matter. My ability to climb a tree depended on who was DM. It goes for any skill.

Yes. This is why I've come to appreciate games which explicitly state 'if there's nothing at stake let them (succeed/take 20/take 10/use half dice pull as successes/whatever)'. When climbing a tree you're risking at most a broken leg must of the time, but if you're sensible that shouldn't be a concern.

I've seen a lot of pointless rolls in my tone, and even more that are a case of 'pass or the adventure stops right here', although those are fine if they're the consequence of our actions (yeah, barging in on a cult guns drawn, exorcising their demon matter, and then trying to bargin once they are their weapons was totally the right think to do, darn Difficulty 25 Persuade checks).

Having to roll to climb a tree in the afternoon with nothing making it stressful makes little sense. Having to roll against a 15 when chased by goblins on wards makes sense. Having to roll against a 20 when chased by shortbow-wielding goblins on wargs makes sense. Having to roll against a 25 when pressured by goblins with warg mounted gattling guns makes sense. A game could easily give us these benchmarks, 5e refuses because it means they'd have to put some effort into the skill system.

EggKookoo
2020-05-02, 05:38 AM
Yes. This is why I've come to appreciate games which explicitly state 'if there's nothing at stake let them (succeed/take 20/take 10/use half dice pull as successes/whatever)'.

Like 5e? From the DMG:

Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:


Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible -- such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?


If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.

Anonymouswizard
2020-05-02, 06:06 AM
Like 5e? From the DMG:

Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:


Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible -- such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?


If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.

*insert rant about how splitting the core into three books only artificially inflates prices*

EggKookoo
2020-05-02, 06:41 AM
*insert rant about how splitting the core into three books only artificially inflates prices*

Complaining that 5e has too much splat is... interesting. And all D&D editions have separated out the PHB from the DMG...

But why would a DM rule need to be in the PHB? It is touched upon there: "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results." But calling for checks and setting DCs is the DM's role, not the player's, so it makes sense the bulk of info about it would live in the DMG.

Quertus
2020-05-02, 07:20 AM
Right, that is a you thing. YOU lack the mental flexibility.

I mean, yeah? I wouldn't have asked for help, or used those words, if I thought everyone had identical blind spots.

I believe in owning up to my faults and biases, and genuinely value growth.


Well this is a bold assumption.

Less "assumption" and more… "here's what I just heard" (because of my biases and blind spots, but also because that's what I've seen at my tables). Subtle difference. And I'm in the camp that these subtle differences can matter.


For one, I am not asking for "blind faith", I am asking for genuine "trust" that I know what I am doing on some level. I am not going to claim that I've got running a game down to a science, if nothing else this is something I believe can never be done,

Yes, people make mistakes.

(Also, you don't see any incoherence between "people make mistakes" and "trust me, I know what I'm doing"? Let alone those two, coupled with the players clearly seeing that this is one of those mistakes?)


however I am also asking my players to imagine for one moment that I am not actively looking for a "gotcha!" moment to kill their character that could have genuinely taken them anywhere from all of 10 seconds to generate, to an entire week to compare options and thing about what they wanted to do with the system to play what they wanted to play with the allocated resources.

And secondly, I like to believe I go above and beyond in walking my player's through my line of reasoning by sending them the notes for any adventures I've sent them through after they've completed it so they can recap what they went through and, in a mechanical sense, to know I didn't screw them. Excessive? Yes, but my enjoyment of the game comes from the design and manipulation of the system to present a dangerous, yet entertaining adventure for a group of 20 to 40 year olds that want to sit around for upwards to 12 hours, rolling plastic polyhedrons, so sending my player's these notes is extremely satisfying for me.

Furthermore, I'd like to believe that errors and mistakes can be corrected, regardless of how small or large they might be. Say for example, I make a mistake with the math of a DC, or my player doesn't understand the math, or whatever and either I, or they point it out to me. While I will have egg on my face for a brief moment, I'd like to believe I am close enough to my player's that such minute mistakes can be easily resolved or repaired. What if such an error results in a player death you might be asking? Well, it's easy enough to just say the party find's a scroll of Raise Dead (in our setting there is even a special modifier for it called "auto-casting" that just allows someone, even with no magical training to use it) and to tell the player not to worry about the level loss or ability score loss, and just like that you've immediately fixed the error and nobody at the table cares that you ever made one. I've learned to be more cautious with my math around save-or-die effects, and the player goes back to having a good time with their Barbarian, or Fighter, or Wizard, or whatever.

Yeah, this is closer to the mark. So I don't have go back and quote old threads where things like this happened because of the GM's mistakes. Good. This makes the conversation much easier. Kudos!

Two problems.

One, with a ”fix it forward" mentality, you've still got the story incoherence of "you had the guy who was immune to fire *burn to death*" (or whatever mistake you made). Why is it not better for the player to ask, "are you sure?" in the moment than you killing them unrealistically and then saying, "oops, my bad, let's say you get resurrected"?

Two, you've got the subtle ripple effects of your change. What if one of your *other* players realizes that, if the you had run the game right, and hadn't let the dead PC catch fire, they'd still have the blanket and healing potion that they used to try to save him? And a 3rd player realizes that, the way that the board was set up, the fire immune guy would have caught the warp mummy's curse / been closest to the fleeing pixie princess, so *he's* the one who would have rolled a new mutation / now have a pixie hiding in his pocket?

I see it as much easier (and much better for story cohesion) to just listen when the player asks, "are you sure", than to try to correct mistakes & ripple effect mistakes after the fact. What I'm asking is, what benefit does your game get by you not fixing mistakes as they happen, and waiting until later to resurrect the dead PC, rather than simply not having them die in the first place?


Because there is no "willing blindness" or "passive mindlessness" and in actuality, you're just incapable of seeing that people are evidently capable of engaging in different ways because of your admitted mental rigidness.

"You just burned by fire elemental to death. Shrug, whatever. You'll explain it at the end. Oh, they're isn't an explanation, it was a mistake? OK, now let's talk about it."

"Huh. That is clearly not what the rules say / what I would expect here. Shrug, whatever. No point in investigating this anomaly, the GM will explain it to us eventually."

How would you prefer to describe this mindset, if not "willing blindness" or "passive mindlessness"?

When there is something anonymously in one of my games, either I made a mistake, or that is a call to action for the PCs / players to investigate (if they enjoy that minigame).

What I'm asking is, why would you want to train players to exhibit the behaviors y'all described, and I paraphrased above? (And, if you find my paraphrasing to be substantially different from your intent, can you explain that difference?)


But for a moment, let's pretend that you're correct. Let's suspend all logic and go with your idea that people that trust their GM to not screw them are somehow engaging in "passive mindlessness". You have intentionally established a scenario where the game breaks down into a state of debate and disagreement over how the game is actually supposed to be played, instead of actual gameplay.

This is just concentrated failure to communicate.

Chess is not a scenario of constant debate over how the game is supposed to be played, now is it? No, when people actually play by the rules, then, funny thing, you get *more* actual game play, not less. *Less* debate about the rules, not more.

And the logic is simply what you already stated and confessed to: that you are not perfect, no GM is. People make mistakes. Why isn't it better to nip those mistakes in the bud?

Also… thinking. If you introduce a monster that can burn the fire-immune guy, I'm likely to try to take it alive, train it, clone it, breed it, you name it, I'm on it.

People make mistakes. Especially me. I want my players to be able to know whether something is worth their mental effort to investigate, by asking, "did you mean for this to sound anonymous" before putting time and effort into it.

… is that it? Do your players capitalize on your mistakes, coming up with cool uses for your DC 25 trees, your "burns even immune beings" monsters, your egg-on-face mistakes, that your game is more fun when you don't take that away from them? Is that the benefit you get from waiting until later to fix your mistakes?

If that's the case, if "rule of cool trumps rules", and your players make cool things out of your mistakes, by breeding and mating with your "burns with fire things that are immune to fire" monsters, if they actively turn bugs into features, and that's fun for your group, then… OK. I can understand that answer. Is that why you do it?


Why not simply spend all day debating the rules of the game on an internet forum such as this one instead of actually playing the game? :smallconfused:

My brother and I once spent 3 hours in the middle of a session debating the rules. We walked away having learned something, our game was better because of it. We declared it the best session ever - or would have, if the other players had enjoyed it as much as we did.

We - or, at least, I - don't value debate, so much as the growth that come from a productive discussion.

That said, "are you sure?" results in much less game time lost (and other bonuses, like letting players know when "the game is afoot", and the investigation minigame will pay off) than fixing it after the fact, so perhaps you should turn that question back around at yourself. What benefit does your game see by spending more time fixing things after the fact, by spending 9 stitches later when one now would do?

EggKookoo
2020-05-02, 07:39 AM
"You just burned by fire elemental to death. Shrug, whatever. You'll explain it at the end. Oh, they're isn't an explanation, it was a mistake? OK, now let's talk about it."

"Huh. That is clearly not what the rules say / what I would expect here. Shrug, whatever. No point in investigating this anomaly, the GM will explain it to us eventually."

How would you prefer to describe this mindset, if not "willing blindness" or "passive mindlessness"?

I'm jumping in here because you did originally include me in your quote about willing blindness. I didn't mean to imply my players wouldn't question obviously incoherent or illogical things happening in the game. I don't even mean to imply they never question a DC (although it's pretty rare).

There's a world of difference between "you burned the fire elemental to death" and "the DC for climbing this tree is 13, but that other tree yesterday was 12." DCs are fluid things and highly situation dependent. There are a million reasons why the DC for climbing two different trees could be different, without reality breaking down. If a tree is 12 one day, and this tree today is 13, it just means this tree is a little harder to climb. It's not willing blindness on the players to just accept that and move on. Almost the opposite -- the one-harder DC is self-evident. Just by the virtue of it being one point higher communicates the idea that there's something about this tree.

I've seen requests for the DC of a "typical" tree, but I'm not sure there is such a beast. There might be an average tree (although that's still a dubious concept) but you would only know that after trying to climb a bunch and compiling a history. It's something a DM could decide ahead of time. If a PC would know this, it's something that PC's player should ask the DM.

Quertus
2020-05-02, 08:06 AM
I'm jumping in here because you did originally include me in your quote about willing blindness. I didn't mean to imply my players wouldn't question obviously incoherent or illogical things happening in the game. I don't even mean to imply they never question a DC (although it's pretty rare).

There's a world of difference between "you burned the fire elemental to death" and "the DC for climbing this tree is 13, but that other tree yesterday was 12." DCs are fluid things and highly situation dependent. There are a million reasons why the DC for climbing two different trees could be different, without reality breaking down. If a tree is 12 one day, and this tree today is 13, it just means this tree is a little harder to climb. It's not willing blindness on the players to just accept that and move on. Almost the opposite -- the one-harder DC is self-evident. Just by the virtue of it being one point higher communicates the idea that there's something about this tree.

I've seen requests for the DC of a "typical" tree, but I'm not sure there is such a beast. There might be an average tree (although that's still a dubious concept) but you would only know that after trying to climb a bunch and compiling a history. It's something a DM could decide ahead of time. If a PC would know this, it's something that PC's player should ask the DM.

I think that the question here is whether there is a discernable underlying logic, and a minigame to play.

Yes, as an avid climber of trees in my youth, I absolutely agree that climbing trees is not a "one DC fits all" scenario. If you declare that all pine trees are DC 20, and all willow trees are DC 10, then you and I are likely to have a little discussion about your world-building.

Met with any level of incoherence, it is likely (and, at, "oh, there's a playable minigame here", possible) that one or more players in my groups would derail the game, for as many sessions as it takes, into becoming tree experts, and/or (tree) climbing experts. In short order, the party would be loaded up with all the optimal gear, and woe betide the monster that ever challenges the party in the realm of climbing ever again. Between our knotted ropes, climbing harnesses, clawed gloves and boots… and our oil, mirrors (for distracting lights), and specialization in sundering key branches / supports… and our sage-like knowledge of exact climbing DCs and modifiers, we would become masters of the vertical space. At least, until the orcs decide to just burn the trees.

Point is, if there's a minigame in your head, be prepared for the players to want to get in on the action, too. Or not. Both should make for a good game; the game should be designed to not simply fall apart if the players do or do not take up any given minigame.

-----

So, back to my original comments, your players actually would question things that don't make sense to them? They do, in fact, got time for that? And you view that as good, healthy game play?

NigelWalmsley
2020-05-02, 08:10 AM
I wrote why it was bad earlier. It leads to inconsistency among the games. I don't know what my character can do until I want to do it. It's a bother to me my warlock could climb any tree he wants to because he wants to, but my paladin couldn't and can fail to climb it. My monk had it worse and couldn't climb trees unless I rolled a Natural 20. Proficiency, strength, doesn't matter. My ability to climb a tree depended on who was DM. It goes for any skill.

It also prevents you from actualizing certain character concepts. Imagine you're building a character who is a mountaineer. Maybe it's a Druid that was a cliffside hermit or something. Part of that character's identity is that they're good at climbing stuff. If the game has explicit rules for how climbing works, you can build that character to be good at climbing. But if climbing is adjudicated by DM fiat, you can't. You're stuck hoping that your DM thinks you should be good at climbing.


and I can easily do that without a fifty dollar rulebook

This is one of the key points. If the rules are just going to say "make some stuff up", what's the point of having rules? I can already make some stuff up. The reason we buy expensive rulebooks is the hope that the people who write them will do a better job creating mechanics for resolving actions than we would.


*insert rant about how splitting the core into three books only artificially inflates prices*

Splitting core into three books allows you to have more content. The fact that every edition of D&D launches with a big book of monsters for you to use in your games is great for DMs. The distinction between the PHB and the DMG is somewhat more arbitrary, but it's not like if the DM didn't exist the PHB would be arbitrarily longer. The stuff in it would just be pushed to some splat (also, at least 3e published all the core stuff online for free anyway).

King of Nowhere
2020-05-02, 08:12 AM
even in 3.5, several checks have explicitly stated DC, but many others are not.
For example, the DC for acrobacy to avoid an attack of opportunity is clearly stated, that to jump a specific distance is also stated, but what if you wanted to jump and land precisely in one point (because, for example, you are trying to jump on a narrow platform, and oveshooting would make you fall)? what if you are attempting a series of jumps to move among tree branches? is that jump, acrobacy, or balance?
so, when i am trying an action with a stated fixed dc i directly roll the dice and tell the dm if i succeeded. but there are still many cases where i need to ask if my character would feel confident trying a certain action

there are also some skills that most tables modify because they are game-breaking if taken at face value. the most infamous is diplomacy, because by the published dc it is trivial even at low level to turn any enemy into a friend. when i dm i make clear that "turning your enemy into a friend" can be accomplished by roleplaying and finding common ground, and yes, a high diplomacy check can make the process much easier, but you can't just befriend people in one minute by beating a DC. much less befriend them in one round by taking the -10 penalty.
not unless it makes sense in context.
and while you can use diplomacy to offer a deal, as per rich rules, there are some deals that just cannot fly. the article by rich used as an example for a "horrible" deal, at -10 penalty, "a piece of string for a castle", but i would consider that automatic failure.
some other dm may have different ideas about it.
another case is spot, which works pretty well up close, but taken at face value, you couldn't even see the sun in the sky, not even with an optimized check. so, if i am trying to see the hidden rogue, then it's my spot against his hide, and it's straightforward. but if i make a spot check from a high vantage point to locate places of interest and get general informations about the local geography, that's entirely up to the dm


As a minor quibble, there's a lot of magic in there. Belt of Strength and Wish are giving you +11 Str, so without magic you're only at 35 Str. That gives you a heavy load of 3,200 lbs, which is hilariously huge, but not elephant huge. And you definitely can't use a Potion of Enlarge, because that's the point of the original thread - magic allows you to bypass some of those concerns, but an impossible thing is impossible unless you've been given specific permissions that render it possible.

actually, my point is that already by the mid levels adventurers are so beefed up with magic that one has to be careful with assumptions on what is and what is not possible.
by the way, i said i didn't want to bring cheese in, but if needed i can call in the war hulk, who can get a 55 STR without magic.

EggKookoo
2020-05-02, 08:51 AM
So, back to my original comments, your players actually would question things that don't make sense to them? They do, in fact, got time for that? And you view that as good, healthy game play?

It's healthy for players to question things that don't make sense. I also think it's healthy for the players to have perspective on such things. IMO, healthy gameplay is when the players (and DM) focus first on what makes sense within the fiction. Meaning that the mechanics themselves exist to help make sense of the fiction, but aren't the drivers of such. My broken-record mantra here is "the mechanics are not a physics engine." I mean, they're not to me. They may be to other players, but that's not how I view them.

A fire-immune creature dying to fire damage is likely illogical regardless of what mechanic system you use. It's illogical in D&D and it would be illogical in Call of Cthulhu or a plain old game of make-believe. That's certainly worthy of questioning. It's basically self-contradictory.

DCs are different. They're basically judgment calls, and they're tied to the specific task in front of the PCs. If I give you a DC for a check, and last session I gave you a lower DC for a very similar task, I'm communicating to you that the one you're trying now is harder. Why is it harder? I could explain it based on the nature of the task. In fact I'd be happy to. But here's my question. If you suspect I made it harder first because I wanted today's challenge to be a little tougher for the sake of gameplay (e.g. non-fiction reasons), and that I made up an in-fiction justification only after being asked (to be clear, you don't know for certain this is the case, you just suspect it), would you be satisfied? Do you need to feel that there's a rock-solid, bulletproof in-fiction reason for this DC to be harder? Or are you okay with knowing that there's at most just a reasonable justification for it?

Pex
2020-05-02, 10:09 AM
Like 5e? From the DMG:

Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure. When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:


Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
Is a task so inappropriate or impossible -- such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?


If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.

This fails as soon as one DM says this task is so easy there's no chance of failure but another DM disagrees and says that it's not so easy you need to roll because you might fail. The third DM agrees with the second it's not so easy but finds it harder so gives a higher DC than the second. That's the point. I already said 5E tells you what to do if something is easy or hard. What it doesn't do is define what makes something easy or hard. It leaves the decision up to the DM. Different DMs have different opinions on what is easy or hard leading to my character can only do something based on who is the DM. That's the problem.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-02, 10:18 AM
This fails as soon as one DM says this task is so easy there's no chance of failure but another DM disagrees and says that it's not so easy you need to roll because you might fail. The third DM agrees with the second it's not so easy but finds it harder so gives a higher DC than the second. That's the point. I already said 5E tells you what to do if something is easy or hard. What it doesn't do is define what makes something easy or hard. It leaves the decision up to the DM. Different DMs have different opinions on what is easy or hard leading to my character can only do something based on who is the DM. That's the problem.

To many people, me included, that's a great thing rather than a problem. I probably have a different idea of what's easy or hard compared to other DMs, so being able to control the specifics (and more importantly, for the game to present this as normal in the table culture sense) is invaluable.

However, the rules still differ from freeform in the sense that if you make your guy good at athletics, he'll always be the guy who is good at that compared to characters who are not. Same with any other skill. The specific tasks (doing a flip or climbing a wall or whatever else) might present a varying level of challenge from DM to DM, but the character with certain skills will always be better at the task than the character who isn't.

EggKookoo
2020-05-02, 10:40 AM
This fails as soon as one DM says this task is so easy there's no chance of failure but another DM disagrees and says that it's not so easy you need to roll because you might fail. The third DM agrees with the second it's not so easy but finds it harder so gives a higher DC than the second. That's the point. I already said 5E tells you what to do if something is easy or hard. What it doesn't do is define what makes something easy or hard. It leaves the decision up to the DM. Different DMs have different opinions on what is easy or hard leading to my character can only do something based on who is the DM. That's the problem.

The rules also don't tell you what CR to make encounters. Sure, it tells you that roughly CR = average party level is a moderate-difficulty encounter (and Xanathar's refines this formula a bit to handle increasing PC power at higher levels), but it doesn't tell you how often the DM should be hitting the party with moderate encounters. Or if they should always be moderate encounters. DMs are left to build their own encounter patterns.

So you come to my table and I like to hit the party with harder encounters. APL + a little bit. I'm not a killer DM. I just think it's more fun if you have to work harder. I give you good rewards. Is this a sign that the game is broken? Or am I just tailoring my game? Is it MMI because on average the monsters you fight have 1 more AC than the ones you fought in someone else's campaign? Not because I'm tweaking the monsters, but because I'm hitting you with higher CR encounters a bit more often.

Jay R
2020-05-02, 11:20 AM
The first post I wrote for this thread is way too long, so here is the first piece of it. If the discussion indicates that people want to see the rest, it may come out slowly.

----

First of all, yes there are real trends to observe, but there was never a time in which all gamers agreed. One approach would be more common at one time, and another would become more common later.

This weekend there will be games played all over the world. Some will be run by DMs who've played for decades, and some will be played by some kids who opened the game for the first time on Friday. They will not all be played the same way.

They weren’t all played the same way in the 1970s, either.

Since the time the original game was published, the hobby has been far bigger than any one person could experience. So when you say, “I saw the following,” you are probably correct. But when you go on to say, “So that’s what gaming was like then,” then your statement is almost undoubtedly wrong – or at least woefully incomplete. That’s what the tiny piece of gaming you experienced was like then.


We all heard horror DM tales. games where you don't get any loot, and most smart solution are vetoed. games where you can get a negative debuff that willl never get away, as you won't have the magic to heal it. games where your character can die for a critical fumble. and we wonder why the players put up with them.

Yes, we have all heard such stories. But I never met such a DM in the 1970s. Smart solutions were usually accepted and praised by the DMs. I heard about some inferior DMs who had only a single acceptable solution, and didn’t let anything else work, but I never actually played with one. Based on what I experienced, they appeared to be an extreme minority. But I only experienced a small piece of the hobby.

I did, however, meet several DMs who might have been accused of being horror DMs. For instance, I met DMs who put you in positions in which just fighting, or just using the abilities on your character sheet, would often not be enough. You wouldn’t survive unless you came up with a smart solution. I didn’t consider them killer DMs. But another player might.

The curses I saw were usually cursed magic items. You could get rid of them with the right quest, which means that you had to play with that handicap/challenge for a while, until you found a way out of it. Again, players who weren’t clever might see this as something they will never get rid of, because they didn’t think to go find that magic to heal it.

Finally, I saw a DM in 1975 who was accused of unfairly taking away the party’s loot. This party had been turned to stone. A paladin run by another player found the statues, returned them to town, and paid a cleric to revive them.

But when they recovered, they discovered that none of their magic items worked. Reasonably enough, they accused the DM of unfairly doing something to destroy their items. “Being turned to stone shouldn’t do that.” Perhaps that story has been told since as an example of a horror DM who unfairly took away the party’s magic items.

But the truth was that the ex-paladin PC had fallen recently, and had a magic bag that would make a useless copy of any item placed in it. He had stolen all their magic and left useless copies.

But since they never found that out, they always thought the DM had been unfair to them.

I wonder how many stories of horror DMs were similar situations. More importantly, there is a long continuum of situations from this one, to DMs who took actions because a character was too powerful, to DMs who were actually a little unfair, to the clichéd "killer DM". And they might all be accused of being a killer DM.

I just don't know how common they really were.

And neither do you.

Saint-Just
2020-05-02, 11:22 AM
However, the rules still differ from freeform in the sense that if you make your guy good at athletics, he'll always be the guy who is good at that compared to characters who are not. Same with any other skill. The specific tasks (doing a flip or climbing a wall or whatever else) might present a varying level of challenge from DM to DM, but the character with certain skills will always be better at the task than the character who isn't.

Someone in this thread already mentioned choice of try to steal the key\bribe the guard\pick the lock\scale the wall. Different DMs are not only likely to assign different DCs to those tasks they are likely to rank them in a different order. Which makes for playing not understanding the world (and even if you allow for things that one guard may be not as bribable as another, or that how hard the lock is is not obvious from the outside with arbitrary DCs on top of that you end up with more uncertainty than would be warranted IRL).



So you come to my table and I like to hit the party with harder encounters. APL + a little bit. I'm not a killer DM. I just think it's more fun if you have to work harder. I give you good rewards. Is this a sign that the game is broken? Or am I just tailoring my game? Is it MMI because on average the monsters you fight have 1 more AC than the ones you fought in someone else's campaign? Not because I'm tweaking the monsters, but because I'm hitting you with higher CR encounters a bit more often.

That has nothing to do with the previous discussion. Hitting people with harder monsters is comparable to consistently ruling that all important structures are built from an excellent ashlar instead of a rough stone (harder to climb) and everyone of importance uses masterwork locks (harder to pick). Arbitrary DCs (when a character can climb a wall of a rough stone one day and the next day have only 5% chance of success) would be comparable to assigning arbitrary ACs to armor and arbitrary damage to weapons.

Quertus
2020-05-02, 11:58 AM
It's healthy for players to question things that don't make sense. I also think it's healthy for the players to have perspective on such things. IMO, healthy gameplay is when the players (and DM) focus first on what makes sense within the fiction. Meaning that the mechanics themselves exist to help make sense of the fiction, but aren't the drivers of such. My broken-record mantra here is "the mechanics are not a physics engine." I mean, they're not to me. They may be to other players, but that's not how I view them.

A fire-immune creature dying to fire damage is likely illogical regardless of what mechanic system you use. It's illogical in D&D and it would be illogical in Call of Cthulhu or a plain old game of make-believe. That's certainly worthy of questioning. It's basically self-contradictory.

DCs are different. They're basically judgment calls, and they're tied to the specific task in front of the PCs. If I give you a DC for a check, and last session I gave you a lower DC for a very similar task, I'm communicating to you that the one you're trying now is harder. Why is it harder? I could explain it based on the nature of the task. In fact I'd be happy to. But here's my question. If you suspect I made it harder first because I wanted today's challenge to be a little tougher for the sake of gameplay (e.g. non-fiction reasons), and that I made up an in-fiction justification only after being asked (to be clear, you don't know for certain this is the case, you just suspect it), would you be satisfied? Do you need to feel that there's a rock-solid, bulletproof in-fiction reason for this DC to be harder? Or are you okay with knowing that there's at most just a reasonable justification for it?

Well, this looks like a can of worms and a half. :smallamused:

EDIT: pretend "IMO" or "IME" precedes everything here. Because it's not all objective truth, and I'd actually enjoy reading different a PoV.

I come from a wargaming background. Where the rules *are* the physics. Same for MtG. And board games. And most everything else. If you've made a fiction that doesn't match the rules, then your fiction is wrong. Make a better fiction. Like, if I write a story where Average Joe lifts an elephant over his head - not a toy elephant, not on a low gravity world, etc - then I've written a dumb story. It's on the author to write a better story. That's my stance on things, and I don't see that changing, and me enjoying stories about Average Joe juggling elephants any time soon.

To me, in general, most anyone who thinks that their misunderstanding of the world is better than that of the game designers, and so much better than that of the game designers as to be worthy of an explicit rules change, is guilty of hubris. Now, that's *changing*. That's not "adding to" or even "changing the level of detail of". So, if you want to go from "all trees are DC 15" to "trees range from DC 10 to DC 20, depending on the breed" to even "there's a ±X variance even among trees of the same breed"? That's fine. It's also fine to go the opposite direction (although it's rather bad form is someone was explicitly looking forward to the "tree selection minigame").

Having DCs change, expecting the players to notice / ask / investigate? Yeah, that's the big thing. So we're in agreement on the main point, I think… just not on the subtle bits.

However, this "fiction-first" reasoning? IME, it produces *worse* fiction than "physics-first" fiction (go ahead, write the story of Average Joe juggling elephants if you disagree). Worse, it generally invalidates not only that action, or that game, but everything that GM has ever done. I have no interest in the story of the guy who won his first MtG tournament because the judges thought it would make a great story. But I do if he won fair and square.

(Or, in my case, lost to the tournament winner, first match. Got a consolation prize. Great times. My second tournament, I would have beaten the tournament winner in my second match, except that he cheated. Great times.)

-----

Now, this last bit is particularly interesting, because it's not "fiction", it's "challenge". Me, I'm oldschool. A "fair fight" is the kind of thing that can kill you (also, it's the kind of thing war games are *much*, much better at, both mechanically, and in having much more "disposable" playing pieces). The gameplay, then, is in stacking the deck as far in your favor as physically (physics-ly?) possible. By focusing on "gameplay" and "challenge" as "setting a higher DC", you've probably already failed.

One, you could try to railroad that DC, ignoring physics to force things to remain "challenging". Thereby killing the gameplay.

Two, the "correct" way to provide challenge is via the physics. Maybe it's raining, increasing the DC to climb the tree. Maybe there are orcs chasing us, so we don't have time to take 10. You add challenge *fairly* by setting the scene, by stacking the deck, not by setting the DC (note: this also has the added advantage of telegraphing the DC / added difficulty, even before the players ask). Then the players see if they can use the tools that they have to still climb the wet tree without taking 10… or if they use the bad visual conditions of the storm to hide from the orcs (or, better yet, throw dummies up into the trees, and leave a flying familiar to talk to the orcs to maintain the ruse while they run away (and the orcs kill themselves falling from the trees, or burn the trees and assume the party dead)).

Trying to manufacture challenge through manufactured DCs is wrong-minded, and leads to many kinds of bad gaming practices, from tunnel vision to railroading. So, if I *thought* you did that? I'd probably start telling you stories like this one, in the hopes that your gaming would improve. And be extra sensitive to signs of you falling to the dark side of railroading.

Jay R
2020-05-02, 12:05 PM
Someone in this thread already mentioned choice of try to steal the key\bribe the guard\pick the lock\scale the wall. Different DMs are not only likely to assign different DCs to those tasks they are likely to rank them in a different order. Which makes for playing not understanding the world (and even if you allow for things that one guard may be not as bribable as another, or that how hard the lock is is not obvious from the outside with arbitrary DCs on top of that you end up with more uncertainty than would be warranted IRL).

Of course different DMs will assign different DCs. If the game has any immersibility at all, then the DM has a mental image of the pocket that key is in, the guard's frame of mind, the lock, the wall. Those mental images are what make a game more fascinating than the "did I succeed or fail?" level.

Or turn it around. If the guard is nothing other than a DC15 bribe check, then we aren't playing a role-playing game at all; we're just fiddling with numbers, and the fact that you assigned the words "guard" and "bribe" to it have no effect. Call bribery "skill C", and have a DC15 "skill C check". I want the DM to quickly consider who the guard might be, whether he has a gambling debt, whether he thinks his sergeant might be watching, and what happened to the last guard who was caught taking bribes. And it should be different from another guard at another time. This is the same uncertainty that would be warranted in real life.

But I also want reasonable clues. When I start trying to bribe the guard, she should look around and say, "There's my sergeant watching us." Or maybe she speaks in a very quiet voice. That's a clue that she's willing to listen, but not be caught. If the DM only tells you the number to roll, and whether you succeed or fail, that's as uninteresting as rolling a skill C check.

There is an old legal maxim. “Any lawyer knows the law. A good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge.” Long ago, I formulated the D&D equivalent. “Any player knows the basic rules. A good player knows the supplements. A great player knows the DM.”

Over time, I try to learn what kind of approach works best with each DM. This is equivalent to getting deeper into what world I'm playing in.

EggKookoo
2020-05-02, 12:19 PM
That has nothing to do with the previous discussion. Hitting people with harder monsters is comparable to consistently ruling that all important structures are built from an excellent ashlar instead of a rough stone (harder to climb) and everyone of importance uses masterwork locks (harder to pick). Arbitrary DCs (when a character can climb a wall of a rough stone one day and the next day have only 5% chance of success) would be comparable to assigning arbitrary ACs to armor and arbitrary damage to weapons.

But that's not the example cited in the criticism. It's not "I climbed this same wall yesterday under the same conditions (not slippery, etc) and the DC was 12. Why is it 13 now?" That's not what people are complaining about. The criticism is "I climbed a stone wall in that set of ruins yesterday and it was DC 12. We're at another stone wall and now you're telling me it's 13. Why?" The answer is, of course, because this is a different stone wall with different properties, enough to make it slightly harder to climb. Being able to climb that other wall at a certain level of ability doesn't guarantee you can climb this wall with that same level.

More extremely, the criticism is "that other game I played with a different DM entirely in a completely different campaign with a different PC let me climb walls at DC 12. Why can't I climb walls in your campaign in this separate fictional world with a different PC with the same DC?" To me that's kind of ridiculous. It's akin to telling a DM that they have to let you play a certain race because this time in another game the DM let you play that race. Or telling the DM they must use Optional Rule X because that other game you played used Optional Rule X.

Vahnavoi
2020-05-02, 12:19 PM
I find part of this discussion really surreal, because it was 1st edition AD&D in 1977 that explicitly laid out this idea of game consistency. But from what I gather, if 5th edition is too open for some people, oh boy they wouldn't have been able to handle AD&D. It didn't even have a generalized skill or ability check system that soon became a feature in pretty much all tabletop and computer RPGs.

EggKookoo
2020-05-02, 01:25 PM
I come from a wargaming background. Where the rules *are* the physics. Same for MtG. And board games. And most everything else. If you've made a fiction that doesn't match the rules, then your fiction is wrong. Make a better fiction. Like, if I write a story where Average Joe lifts an elephant over his head - not a toy elephant, not on a low gravity world, etc - then I've written a dumb story. It's on the author to write a better story. That's my stance on things, and I don't see that changing, and me enjoying stories about Average Joe juggling elephants any time soon.

Any mechanics set that doesn't require actual physics calculations isn't "physics." It's an abstraction, designed to focus on the elements of play the game designers expect and hope the players to be most interested in. You don't see, for example, a lot of complicated economics rules in D&D. But you do see a lot of combat rule detail. I think it's pretty clear why that is.

Many TTRPGs, and D&D is a good example of this, use terminology that delivers a lot of flavor at the expense of accuracy. An example is "armor class," which a creature can have a value in despite not wearing armor. Indeed, a naked creature with a very high dexterity can have a better armor class than a normal-dex creature in actual real armor. Obviously "armor class" is a kind of game term euphemism that means something like "damage avoidance rating." D&D calls it an armor class because it's an evocative term that fits with its high fantasy setting, and it's a game that likes its heritage. Another one is charisma, which in more recent editions of D&D has only a little to do with how charismatic you actually are. It really functions more like a "force of will" attribute and could be better termed "presence" or something. But it's been charisma since day one, and we're stuck with it.

Given this, you can't take the elements of D&D's mechanics at face value -- you think that's armor you're "classed" in? But it goes deeper than this. If wearing armor and being highly mobile/agile contribute to the same mechanic, then armor class isn't even a single thing. A hit that misses a paladin because he's wearing plate, and a hit missing a monk because he dodges out of the way -- both of these things look like the same mechanic to us at the table. I mean, attack roll, compare to AC. Hit or miss. Right? But in the game world, two utterly different and arguably mutually-exclusive things just happened.

To make matters worse, a creature with leather armor has an AC that's partly the property of that armor, but partly the property of its dexterity. It's both! So at this point we can see that AC doesn't represent "the physics." It's a pure gamist mechanic that has no single correlation to something happening within the game world. D&D takes a number of semi-related things and rolls them all together and called it "armor class." We accept that because it's simple to understand at the gameplay level, and at the physics level it doesn't seem to matter. I mean, if it matters to you, you've probably moved on from D&D to a less offensive system.


However, this "fiction-first" reasoning? IME, it produces *worse* fiction than "physics-first" fiction (go ahead, write the story of Average Joe juggling elephants if you disagree). Worse, it generally invalidates not only that action, or that game, but everything that GM has ever done. I have no interest in the story of the guy who won his first MtG tournament because the judges thought it would make a great story. But I do if he won fair and square.

Fiction-first, to me, anyway, means there should be a way to explain or describe whatever's going on in the game in a way that makes sense to the characters, who do not perceive themselves to be elements in a game. For example, if you make an attack roll and hit the orc, at the table level your roll met or exceeded the orc's armor class. But in the fiction, your PC hit the orc because he made a good swing, holding the weapon true and, perhaps intuitively, perhaps with deliberation (perhaps a bit of both), he brought the blade in under the orc's overlapping layers of hide armor and sliced into flesh. Your PC didn't "roll well." He isn't aware of dice being involved. Indeed, no dice exist from his perspective. He didn't beat the orc's armor class or roll well with the damage die. None of that game stuff exists for him.

It has nothing to do with it making a great story. It just means, when interpreting what the mechanics mean, they have to be translated into something that fits into the fiction. And frankly, this is easy. We do it all the time, as my armor class example above shows. We're constantly taking game rules at the table and imagining how they play out in the fictional reality of the game. PCs aren't "player characters" in their world -- they're people. They can't see us. If they were real, they would think they do things on their own, rather than being glorified game pieces.

But it goes both ways. We really can't see them, either. We can only interface with the game rules. I don't make my PC slice into the orc's shoulder with my sword. I mean, mechanically. I can narrate that to the DM and he can agree that's what happens, but that's fluff. Mechanically, all I can do is make an attack roll against the orc's AC. But as we just established, that isn't what my PC actually does.

There's a disconnection between what we do at the table and what the characters do in their fictional world. The glue that reconnects it is our imagination.


Now, this last bit is particularly interesting, because it's not "fiction", it's "challenge". Me, I'm oldschool. A "fair fight" is the kind of thing that can kill you (also, it's the kind of thing war games are *much*, much better at, both mechanically, and in having much more "disposable" playing pieces). The gameplay, then, is in stacking the deck as far in your favor as physically (physics-ly?) possible. By focusing on "gameplay" and "challenge" as "setting a higher DC", you've probably already failed.

That works fine in PvP peer-based games. That's not what D&D is. If "stacking the deck" is the way to go, the DM instantly wins by dropping a lich on your 1st level party.

In a cooperative game with a referee-like role such as the DM, the DM has to curate the challenge to fit the players. There's nothing mechanically limiting the DM. He can't view his own role as a peer to the players. Players are allowed (encouraged) to do anything within the limits of the rules to succeed. The DM can't be. The DM must ask himself, "am I scaling this content to the PCs properly?" Otherwise it's just constant TPKs. I mean, that's literally a requirement of being a good DM -- knowing how to scale content to the PCs (it's not the only requirement, but it is one).


One, you could try to railroad that DC, ignoring physics to force things to remain "challenging". Thereby killing the gameplay.

Two, the "correct" way to provide challenge is via the physics. Maybe it's raining, increasing the DC to climb the tree. Maybe there are orcs chasing us, so we don't have time to take 10. You add challenge *fairly* by setting the scene, by stacking the deck, not by setting the DC (note: this also has the added advantage of telegraphing the DC / added difficulty, even before the players ask). Then the players see if they can use the tools that they have to still climb the wet tree without taking 10… or if they use the bad visual conditions of the storm to hide from the orcs (or, better yet, throw dummies up into the trees, and leave a flying familiar to talk to the orcs to maintain the ruse while they run away (and the orcs kill themselves falling from the trees, or burn the trees and assume the party dead)).

I see a lot of "maybes." When a DM says "maybe it's..." that's him manufacturing challenge. Sure, he might be manufacturing it physics-side first (what I mean by it being in-fiction), and working out the DCs from that. But what if he does that and the DCs turn out to be insanely high? What's his recourse? If he doesn't want to kill his PCs off too soon, he modifies the physics until he gets the DCs into a more realistic zone. Which is not very different from...


Trying to manufacture challenge through manufactured DCs is wrong-minded, and leads to many kinds of bad gaming practices, from tunnel vision to railroading. So, if I *thought* you did that? I'd probably start telling you stories like this one, in the hopes that your gaming would improve. And be extra sensitive to signs of you falling to the dark side of railroading.

Yeah, see? So if I set up a challenge for you and the party based on the physics. Then I run the numbers and realize I've given you DCs (or CRs or whatever) that are way out of your league. So I adjust the "physics" to the point where the challenges feel better for your PC levels. That's okay?

But if I look at your levels and figure out what appropriate DCs/CRs are, then set up the physics (fiction) based on that, that's somehow railroading or wrong-minded or something?

Afghanistan
2020-05-02, 01:28 PM
I mean, yeah? I wouldn't have asked for help, or used those words, if I thought everyone had identical blind spots.

I believe in owning up to my faults and biases, and genuinely value growth.

I was mostly pointing out the dramatics of "I cannot FATHOM why anyone would think this way". Furthermore, you don't find it the least bit strange that you are incapable of putting yourself in another's shoes and viewing an approach from their perspective? The difference between the two of us here is that I get where you are coming from, I understand the mentality you have of debate being a form of interaction at the table. The difference is however, I do not view such activities as conductive towards furthering the plot and adventure and therefore do not have my player's fight me tooth and nail on every minute subject as you are so keen on having for some reason. :smallconfused:



Player: what's…
Me: it's X.
Player who knows the rules: shouldn't it be…
Player who knows the rules & me, simultaneously: Y
Me: usually, yes. But not this time.



Player: What's the DC to X?
Player who looked something up something vague and generic in one book: It's Y
DM: On it's Z, there are things that you don't know about effecting the DC
Players: But it must always be Y, the rules say so!
DM: Look here there are a list of modifyers and rules about how a DM sets the DC..
Players: But it must always be Y, the rules say so!
[insert game disruption here]

You claim to hold your own unique position, but in actuality you agree that Zarrgon's scenario is somehow the ideal state. I reject this idea from the root upward. It is a toxic mentality, and a toxic approach to gameplay for no greater reason than that a disagreement over the rules of the game in such a trivial scenario is far more disruptive to the game than a party getting TPK'd at worst, or inconvenienced at best.


Less "assumption" and more… "here's what I just heard" (because of my biases and blind spots, but also because that's what I've seen at my tables). Subtle difference. And I'm in the camp that these subtle differences can matter.

Oh boy, I am so glad to hear you say that.


you don't see any incoherence between "people make mistakes" and "trust me, I know what I'm doing"? Let alone those two, coupled with the players clearly seeing that this is one of those mistakes?

No, I don't. Those are two mutually acceptable statements to make because for some reason you've elected to butcher the idea behind it to suit your argument, which is dishonest to say the least. However, I believe my statement is more along the lines of "People make mistakes, but trust me/them to try and fix those mistakes as they arrive." As a GM or storyteller, you will be wrong, you will make mistakes, and you will need to correct those mistakes. For me, they are not often, but they do happen.

I find this risk much more agreeable than the game being tied up in an endless stream of debate on how the game is supposed to actually work.


One, with a ”fix it forward" mentality, you've still got the story incoherence of "you had the guy who was immune to fire *burn to death*" (or whatever mistake you made). Why is it not better for the player to ask, "are you sure?" in the moment than you killing them unrealistically and then saying, "oops, my bad, let's say you get resurrected"?

[...]

I see it as much easier (and much better for story cohesion) to just listen when the player asks, "are you sure", than to try to correct mistakes & ripple effect mistakes after the fact. What I'm asking is, what benefit does your game get by you not fixing mistakes as they happen, and waiting until later to resurrect the dead PC, rather than simply not having them die in the first place?


When there is something anonymously in one of my games, either I made a mistake, or that is a call to action for the PCs / players to investigate (if they enjoy that minigame).

What I'm asking is, why would you want to train players to exhibit the behaviors y'all described, and I paraphrased above? (And, if you find my paraphrasing to be substantially different from your intent, can you explain that difference?)

I think you are oversimplifying things to an absurd level and even worse, I can tell you are obviously an intelligent individual, so I suspect that you might be well aware that this argument is faulty for a number of reasons. Namely, for one, it is the duty of the player to actually KNOW what is on their sheet. In your scenario, it would pretty much go like this:

Me: Everyone roll a saving throw against the spellcaster's Y spell and roll a Z save for half damage or immunity
Tim: I'm immune to Y because of X
Me: Everyone except for Tim, roll a saving throw against the spellcaster's Y spell.
Everyone else: *checking their sheets if they have immunity to Y or resistance and then rolling*
Me: Okay everyone takes Q points of fire damage, except for Ted who rolled their Z save and is only taking half of that. Okay, Tim's turn.

The simply act of the player's actually being mindfully aware of their own character sheet has rendered your example moot. And, to your credit, I do not view it as my responsibility to hold my player's hand and read their sheet when we are at the table. However, let's presume for a moment that I might be misremembering a rule, or or we've forgotten some modifier in place about a player's sheet, or we might be having a light disagreement on the state of the game. Again, as I've stated, I'm not asking for blind faith, I'm asking for the understanding that I am indeed fallible as a person. My player's have asked me before "are you sure?" and it has resulted in disagreements, they have questioned me before, however the key difference is that it does not in anyway result in a multi hour discussion on HOW the game is supposed to be played. We're playing Dungeons and Dragons, not Debates and Disagreements.

All of this however is moot, I (other's should as well, paperwork is the GM's job after all) keep a notecard and a spreadsheet of whatever modifiers the player's might have. I, unlike most, am quite fanatic about my note taking. To each their own, maybe you enjoy being a helicopter GM or perhaps enjoy having one, but not I.


Two, you've got the subtle ripple effects of your change. What if one of your *other* players realizes that, if the you had run the game right, and hadn't let the dead PC catch fire, they'd still have the blanket and healing potion that they used to try to save him? And a 3rd player realizes that, the way that the board was set up, the fire immune guy would have caught the warp mummy's curse / been closest to the fleeing pixie princess, so *he's* the one who would have rolled a new mutation / now have a pixie hiding in his pocket?

I have elected to take this particular quote and examine it more closely as it is hands down, bar none, one of the more questionable statements I might have ever actually read. Ignoring the fact that the player's could just find another blanket or healing potion to make up for their perceived loss. As the GM, I essentially control the flow of loot so if I find that the player's are missing a few resources off the top, I can always just generate more than the adventure would normally allow... So there is that.

And furthermore, your example of poor positioning is rather lame, if only because that is just blind GM'ing to not notice that someone is closer to some effect, than someone else. I could not imagine this actually occurring in actual play, with an actual map, with actual people. However, in this scenario, I'd just retcon it. Tear off the bandage, admit the mistake, and move on with your pixie in your now three-armed fighter's rogue's pocket. I believe you might need to build stronger examples that aren't just "bad spacing" and "player's not reading their sheets." :smallconfused:



This is just concentrated failure to communicate.

Yes, and you admit that this is bad, no? :smalltongue:


Chess is not a scenario of constant debate [...]

I'm going to stop you right there before you continue to make the absolute worst comparison you could possible ever make between a game of Dungeons and Dragons and Chess. You see, the key difference between Dungeons and Dragons, or really any table top roleplaying game, and Chess is that with Chess, the rules are extremely black and white much like the board you are playing on. Whereas most table top roleplaying games require a Judge, a GM, or other referee type figure to determine the outcome of a game or encounter, Chess does not, and moreover by the etched in stone rules of the game, cannot be a scenario of constant debate.

If you wanted a better example of a game where people question the rules constantly, you would have been better off with Monopoly or Uno for example.


And the logic is simply what you already stated and confessed to: that you are not perfect, no GM is. People make mistakes. Why isn't it better to nip those mistakes in the bud?

Also… thinking. If you introduce a monster that can burn the fire-immune guy, I'm likely to try to take it alive, train it, clone it, breed it, you name it, I'm on it.

I'm going to ignore this statement if only because I've already addressed it. I just find it a sense interesting that this is the most player response to something I've ever seen. I've once introduced dangerously poorly thought out creature's such as the one you're mentioning in the form of a Black Pudding with fast healing 10. The idea being that the Black Pudding would always be able to split indefinitely and flood the room, and possible kill them or something. Well, the player's saw this after escaping the trap, pocketed one, and thought it would be hilarious to keep it as a pet. Their pet, started to cut itself while the player's weren't looking, duplicated itself a few times, and the player's thought it would be nice to sell it as a pet. One brief Ooze ridden Armageddon and a Wish spell, and the player's and myself learned that this was a horrible, terrible idea... But? It was fun. :smalltongue:

So, in essence? Yes. I would 100% encourage you to not only take it alive, train it, clone it, breed it, what have you. By all means. I've used components of a dungeon as a reward for completing the dungeon because sometimes people see a triggered spear trap, and pick up the spear to use as a weapon.


People make mistakes. Especially me. I want my players to be able to know whether something is worth their mental effort to investigate, by asking, "did you mean for this to sound anonymous" before putting time and effort into it.

Do your players capitalize on your mistakes, coming up with cool uses for your DC 25 trees, your "burns even immune beings" monsters, your egg-on-face mistakes, that your game is more fun when you don't take that away from them? Is that the benefit you get from waiting until later to fix your mistakes?

For one, I don't make DC 25 trees, that seems like a pointlessly excessive requirement unless it's like a massive sequoia tree. However, that is mostly just GM prerogative. Generally speaking, at least in 3.5, if I am not threatened, not doing anything time sensitive and my character just wants to climb trees, but isn't exactly kitted to climb trees? I'd just take 10 or 20. It's such an irrelevant action that I don't even think I would make a player roll for it unless it was for dramatic purposes or to advance the plot :smallsigh:

But generally speaking?


If that's the case, if "rule of cool trumps rules", and your players make cool things out of your mistakes, by breeding and mating with your "burns with fire things that are immune to fire" monsters, if they actively turn bugs into features, and that's fun for your group, then… OK. I can understand that answer. Is that why you do it?

Pretty much? If I can turn a bug into a feature that enhances the enjoyment of my player's, by all means. In your example, it might go something like:

Me: The creature attacks through your fire immunity!
Player: This creature can do that? Can I capture it? I roll for non-lethal damage.
Me: Nice.

And I just marvel at myself for having made something my player likes. Maybe I am just looking to maximize enjoyment of the game overall, maybe I'm just having the wrong kind of fun, regardless, player's keep coming back so clearly I've been doing something right :smalltongue:


My brother and I once spent 3 hours in the middle of a session debating the rules. We walked away having learned something, our game was better because of it. We declared it the best session ever - or would have, if the other players had enjoyed it as much as we did.

We - or, at least, I - don't value debate, so much as the growth that come from a productive discussion.

That said, "are you sure?" results in much less game time lost (and other bonuses, like letting players know when "the game is afoot", and the investigation minigame will pay off) than fixing it after the fact, so perhaps you should turn that question back around at yourself. What benefit does your game see by spending more time fixing things after the fact, by spending 9 stitches later when one now would do?

So you prioritize personal enjoyment over group enjoyment. I believe this is starting to make sense.

But I digress, if this is how you and your group "game", then by all means. Discuss the rules and debate the nature of the game until the session expires. If this is how you want to play, far be it from me to tell you that you are doing it wrong. There is no catch all, one size fits all means of playing cops and robbers. If you believe that it should be about cops catching and arresting robbers or a debate on the nature of the criminal investigation and a scathing criticism of the criminal justice system? By all means, make that your game of Cops and Robbers.

I believe you are mischaracterization my position, using however much straw you believe you need to stuff into it to make it believe that you are attacking my genuine position. In reality, I do not death stare my player's for saying "actually GM, this is how it is supposed to work." I do not aggressively and violently stitch and scratch away issues as you might believe. Indeed, the examples you provide are things that would result in a player death more often then not, which for me? Is fairly rare. If I am trying to kill my player's, they absolutely know it. There is in fact such a degree of transparency, that they matter as well as be right behind the screen with me while I am killing them. Mistakes like miscalculations on DCs for save-or-dies are rare, attacks that ignore immunities are rare, trap DCs are double calculated to ensure accuracy, etc. If nothing else, this method has made me hyper focused on finding my own flaws, and made the player's more focused on ensuring that their t's are crossed, i's are doted, and immunities are accounted for.

No, my goal is to challenge, maim, and slow my player's progression through whatever dungeon I've elected to design. In my setting, most dungeon designers (i.e. Me), follow a rather standard philosophy of "Past this point, death awaits." If this is the Tomb of Horror? That point starts on page 4, key 6, which would be a "**** just got real" moment. :smalltongue:

Saint-Just
2020-05-02, 01:41 PM
More extremely, the criticism is "that other game I played with a different DM entirely in a completely different campaign with a different PC let me climb walls at DC 12. Why can't I climb walls in your campaign in this separate fictional world with a different PC with the same DC?" To me that's kind of ridiculous. It's akin to telling a DM that they have to let you play a certain race because this time in another game the DM let you play that race. Or telling the DM they must use Optional Rule X because that other game you played used Optional Rule X.

ITT one player complained that climbing trees without proficiency but without pressure has gone from "no roll required" to "only natural 20". I do not think it is reasonable to believe that trees varied so much in those two different worlds that both rulings were faithful simulations.

Same goes for lesser differences. And there is enough repeated standardized adventuring tasks (e.g. climbing the standard rope you brought with you) that it should be possible to gauge your ability even in different worlds.

Even if I agree with you that it is not possible to say whether 12 or 13 is truer DC for that wall I do believe that walls with reasonably similar descriptions should have reasonably similar DCs even in different worlds.

EggKookoo
2020-05-02, 02:18 PM
ITT one player complained that climbing trees without proficiency but without pressure has gone from "no roll required" to "only natural 20". I do not think it is reasonable to believe that trees varied so much in those two different worlds that both rulings were faithful simulations.

There's a related issue about climbing, and whether or not climbing a tree even calls for a check by default. That's similar but different from varying DCs across different tables.


Even if I agree with you that it is not possible to say whether 12 or 13 is truer DC for that wall I do believe that walls with reasonably similar descriptions should have reasonably similar DCs even in different worlds.

Unfortunately, you can't guarantee that. Even if you had a list of DCs for various tasks. You'll still find variance. The counter-argument is that at least there would be some standard to deviate from. To which I say, "meh." I mean, just make up your own list. It has as much legitimacy as a WotC-published list, when you get down to it. I mean, I see the value in having a reference. I like that Xanathar's has one for tools. But if it didn't and it really mattered I'd just work up my own list. Just as I work out what CR encounters in general I should be hitting my 5-person 2nd-level party with.

Pex
2020-05-02, 03:13 PM
The rules also don't tell you what CR to make encounters. Sure, it tells you that roughly CR = average party level is a moderate-difficulty encounter (and Xanathar's refines this formula a bit to handle increasing PC power at higher levels), but it doesn't tell you how often the DM should be hitting the party with moderate encounters. Or if they should always be moderate encounters. DMs are left to build their own encounter patterns.

So you come to my table and I like to hit the party with harder encounters. APL + a little bit. I'm not a killer DM. I just think it's more fun if you have to work harder. I give you good rewards. Is this a sign that the game is broken? Or am I just tailoring my game? Is it MMI because on average the monsters you fight have 1 more AC than the ones you fought in someone else's campaign? Not because I'm tweaking the monsters, but because I'm hitting you with higher CR encounters a bit more often.

That switches the problem from the game to the DM. If you constantly set the party up against encounters too hard for them I may very well call you a Killer DM even if you think you're not. If I don't like your game I'd leave, but I know the issue is me not preferring your taste, not the game's rules.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-02, 03:39 PM
That switches the problem from the game to the DM. If you constantly set the party up against encounters too hard for them I may very well call you a Killer DM even if you think you're not. If I don't like your game I'd leave, but I know the issue is me not preferring your taste, not the game's rules.

5Es rules (and certainly the whole rulebook) and the most prominent marketing for the game all discourage the "killer DM" style, hence the purpose of this thread. The discussions regarding DM power or DM fiat stem from, i think, encounters with a mismatch of expanded DM power compared to previous editions without a matching change in playstyle. If you play 5Es DM trusting rules in the "Killer DM" style, it probably won't be very fun, or at least won't be as fun as a set of rules more suited to the "killer DM" style would be.

Pex
2020-05-02, 03:52 PM
There's a related issue about climbing, and whether or not climbing a tree even calls for a check by default. That's similar but different from varying DCs across different tables.



Unfortunately, you can't guarantee that. Even if you had a list of DCs for various tasks. You'll still find variance. The counter-argument is that at least there would be some standard to deviate from. To which I say, "meh." I mean, just make up your own list. It has as much legitimacy as a WotC-published list, when you get down to it. I mean, I see the value in having a reference. I like that Xanathar's has one for tools. But if it didn't and it really mattered I'd just work up my own list. Just as I work out what CR encounters in general I should be hitting my 5-person 2nd-level party with.

Bingo! That's all I want. A reference. Benchmarks. Example DCs. Give something to reflect the difficulty of basic tasks. All trees don't have to be DC 15 to climb. In giving example Climb DCs you can have oak tree among the list of DC 10, pine tree among the list of DC 15, palm tree among the list of DC 20. There's a footnote to say if slippery Disadvantage. If there are grips on a wall or rockface Advantage on climbing it. In 5E terms. 3E already has such distinguishing by either giving it its own DC or applying a modifier to the DC or roll depending on the distinguishing thing. Now the DM doesn't have to think up everything on the fly. It's just a tree. The DM knows the DC. The player knows the DC. A different DM knows the DC. When it's not that DC, something's up. It's slippery? Table says roll Disadvantage. You're being attacked but you're actively defending yourself? Table might say increase DC by 5.

The game writers supply the more common modifiers and situations that could happen to change the DC or how to resolve it. For climbing that could mean being slippery, the type of tree if it's supposed to matter for the game in general, wall material, condition of the wall etc. That's their job. They can't think of everything and aren't supposed to. When that situation comes up that's where the DM makes his ruling, but he still has a reference table to work with. Most of the time the table will cover it, and I can build my character to do that skill if it matters for me. For those situations where no roll should be done specifically define how that works and not DM fiat. 3E's solution was Take 10/Take 20 which defined when they could be applied and when they could not. 5E has something similar, but it's still beholden to DM fiat to apply. As soon as one DM disagrees a situation calls for it it breaks apart the point of having it. The game needs to define when it applies.

EggKookoo
2020-05-02, 04:10 PM
Bingo! That's all I want. A reference.

But what you really want is an objective, official reference that you can insist on from table to table. Otherwise you'd make your own or find one online and offer it to the DM (with the understanding that it might not be accepted). Or perhaps ask the DM to provide one ahead of you creating your character so you know what's what in that campaign.

I was reading through my 3e DMG. It does have a list of sample DCs, but it also makes a point of saying these are suggestions only. There are only three standard rules for determining DCs in 3e. Spells are 10 + Spell Level + Caster Ability Mod. Monster Abilities are 10 + 1/2 monster hd + Ability mod. And a "misc" rule that is (get this) "10 to 20, use 15 when in doubt." I love that last one, it's so 5e.

Also, you get stuff like "Assigning DCs is your (DM's) job," which I suppose just means it's up to the DM to determine it. But then there's the section called DM's Best Friend. This section goes into how the DM can arbitrarily increase or decrease DCs by any amount for any reason just because he feels like it. It initially says +-2 but then later it says really, just do whatever the frack you want. You're the DM.

As near as I can tell, the main difference here is that 3e says to make a task impossible by assigning a DC the PC can't possibly hit, while 5e cuts the bs and says "just say it's impossible." That's probably an artifact of how 3e seems to present "making a roll" and "attempting an action" as the same thing, where 5e keeps them separate.

I do see the value in a reference, for me. I'm not interested in your reference, unless it's so similar to the numbers I'd come up with I might as well crib off it. Since we're probably aiming for similar results (tasks that PCs can actually do), we'd end up with similar DCs in most cases.

King of Nowhere
2020-05-02, 04:50 PM
Well, this looks like a can of worms and a half. :smallamused:

EDIT: pretend "IMO" or "IME" precedes everything here. Because it's not all objective truth, and I'd actually enjoy reading different a PoV.

I come from a wargaming background. Where the rules *are* the physics. Same for MtG. And board games. And most everything else.

yes, i can see this approach in your post.
most people do not subscribe to that mindset, though. to me, board games or war games or stuff is a completely different things from D&D.
I don't sit down to play a chess game expecting to have a plot. or to roleplay a piece on the board. I have a clear objective/win condition, and rules to reach it.
while in d&d, i don't have a win condition. i don't have an opponent (defined as someone equal and opposite to me, doing his best to reach the win condition and stop me from doing it). I play to have fun in this fantasy world that has magic, has some radically different physics on what a human body can do, but ultimately, it still has some root in realism.
So, it is fully natural to me that if the rules say something to which i disagree, i would change the rules. if a class does something that should not be done in the campaign world, i'd ban the class (or at least nerf the incriminated ability).

and your example of average joe juggling elephants doesn't really describe it. from my point of view, the ones who play in the strict RAW are the ones with joe juggling elephants. because by a certain interpretation of those rules, average joe can indeed juggle elephants, and since it's on the rules it trumps my instinct telling me that he cannot.

and since you specifically mentioned MtG and fiction, that sums up pretty well my point of contention with the RAW. MtG is full of broken combos, the point of the game is to get one. So, why - in all of the lore and fiction surrounding that game, you never see anyone doing it? why you don't see a planeswalker playing that combo for infinite turns, or infinite mana, infinite draws, whatever?
because, while the game and the fiction are inspired by each other, they clearly are not the same thing, and you can't expect them to have the same rules. If you were playing a MtG-inspired roleplaying game, you would not expect to solve the plot by exhiling nicol bolas with teferi's emblem.



To me, in general, most anyone who thinks that their misunderstanding of the world is better than that of the game designers, and so much better than that of the game designers as to be worthy of an explicit rules change, is guilty of hubris.
Yep, that's me! guilty as charged :smallcool:

but i have several good reasons for it.
1) the game designers released the game without having all the experience of the people playing it. by reading this forum, i can tap into the experience of millions of gamers before me, and therefore I can safely say that I know the game better than the developers did when they released the phb.
2) the developers are doing it for money. this means 2a) the developers are encouraged by the executives to churn out more content, rather than fixing the old one, as you can't sell the second option, and 2b) the developers can't make massive changes and errata that would invalidate large parts of the manuals, otherwise the people who bought the original books would be cheated. I, instead, can do it
3) the developers had to make a product for a vast audience. a product that has to appease a variety of tastes, and that should adapt to a variety of settings. and then they crammed into it as much extra content as they could sell (see also 2). I don't. I have to make a product for my table, and my table alone.
4) if i make a mistake, i can fix it or retcon it out. if the developers make a mistake, it stays printed. there are over 50 splatbooks, each one containing mistakes that cannot be banned because they already sold the book. all together, they amount to a lot of mistakes.

Especially 3. I'd turn the question like this: do you think a mass produced good for the average customer could be better for your needs than something you manufactured yourself?
and the answer is always no.
if you are even a passable cook, the food you cook for yourself tastes better than the food you buy in a supermarket.
if you are a passable pc expert, you can build a pc for yourself from spare parts that is better than what you can find in the store.
if you know about car modifications, you can improve your car performances.
if you know d&d, you can improve the mess of a fantasy kitchen sink they left behind.

Zarrgon
2020-05-02, 10:06 PM
I did, however, meet several DMs who might have been accused of being horror DMs. For instance, I met DMs who put you in positions in which just fighting, or just using the abilities on your character sheet, would often not be enough. You wouldnÂ’t survive unless you came up with a smart solution. I didnÂ’t consider them killer DMs. But another player might.

This right here. It's safe to say the rules before 3E were hard and unforgiving. For example, fail a save and your character dies. And a lot of DMs were hard and unforgiving, just like some are today. Starting with 3E the rules go very, very, very safe, soft and forgiving. And in turn, many DMs got soft and forgiving, though some were from day one.

The real change has been player acceptance. Some players, and this would be the bulk of the older players, would accept character death as part of the game: "I'm just playing a game, and my character died, I'm sad, but will just move on." And note this has nothing to do with if the players has written a whole role playing novel about their character. The point is they just accept what happens.

Other players, some were around from day one, but the bulk are the newer players, will never accept their character death or anything else heaping to the character they don't like. They want their special character to be untouchable. They say more "I'm playing this game to tell my personal character story and nothing can change that unless I want it too." And again, this has nothing to do with role playing, as players ''fighter character Bob" will still whine and cry if their character dies.



The curses I saw were usually cursed magic items. You could get rid of them with the right quest, which means that you had to play with that handicap/challenge for a while, until you found a way out of it. Again, players who werenÂ’t clever might see this as something they will never get rid of, because they didnÂ’t think to go find that magic to heal it.

This was a big one. Not just curses, but lots of magic effects too. This also covers the player that gets all mad as their character got hit with a sleep spell and missed the whole fight.

Again, this is acceptance: One type of player will just accept the curse and keep playing the game. The other player whines and cries and might even refuse to play their ''ruined" character.



I wonder how many stories of horror DMs were similar situations. More importantly, there is a long continuum of situations from this one, to DMs who took actions because a character was too powerful, to DMs who were actually a little unfair, to the clichéd "killer DM". And they might all be accused of being a killer DM.


Very common, just as common as it is today.

NigelWalmsley
2020-05-02, 10:28 PM
Even if I agree with you that it is not possible to say whether 12 or 13 is truer DC for that wall I do believe that walls with reasonably similar descriptions should have reasonably similar DCs even in different worlds.

Yes. It's true that there's some value in being able to tune things precisely. Maybe this wall has slightly better handholds, so the DC is lower. Maybe that wall is slick from rain, so the DC is higher. But there's also value in external expectations. In being able to say "I have +10 Climb, the base DC for climbing a stone wall is 15, I can probably make it up that wall to get to the room with the map we're trying to steal in it". And more specifically, in being able to say that without needing your DM to think about how tough it should be to climb a stone wall. Because most DMs don't actually care about putting their personal touch on wall-climbing. I certainly don't.


But if it didn't and it really mattered I'd just work up my own list. Just as I work out what CR encounters in general I should be hitting my 5-person 2nd-level party with.

You could. I imagine many, even most, of the people in this thread could. But that's not a representative sample of DMs. The rules don't exist solely for people who spend a significant fraction of their free time arguing about D&D on the internet. They also exist for the guy who picked up D&D because he thought Stranger Things was cool. And that guy does not have the knowledge or the skill to be able to effectively work up a list of DCs, or a set of encounter guidelines. So we rely on professional game designers to do that for us, because we expect that a team of experts who have several years to work on a production will produce better outcomes than one guy who's trying to make up an answer fast enough that the game keeps moving.


But what you really want is an objective, official reference that you can insist on from table to table.

What I want is a list that is robust, and based on reasoned analysis of how difficult things should be. And I want to not have to write it up myself, because "how does the rules engine work" should not be the DM's job. I don't want to figure out how hard it is to climb a pine tree, I want to create a compelling world where I and the rest of my group can create engaging stories. And having an objective list helps with that because it gives people a framework to understand that world and take actions in it.


Also, you get stuff like "Assigning DCs is your (DM's) job," which I suppose just means it's up to the DM to determine it. But then there's the section called DM's Best Friend. This section goes into how the DM can arbitrarily increase or decrease DCs by any amount for any reason just because he feels like it. It initially says +-2 but then later it says really, just do whatever the frack you want. You're the DM.

Yes, you can. That doesn't make it a good idea. You can have your 1st level party get slapped around by a Great Wyrm Red Dragon. But that doesn't make doing that good DMing. The reasons the guidelines exist is to try to push DMs -- most of whom are actually not very good at on-the-spot improvisation -- towards good outcomes. Providing guidelines for difficulty makes it more like that, when you hit something the guidelines don't cover, you get a good result.


As near as I can tell, the main difference here is that 3e says to make a task impossible by assigning a DC the PC can't possibly hit, while 5e cuts the bs and says "just say it's impossible."

That's backwards. Saying "it's impossible" is what's creating BS. If the check to climb a flat wall in a hurricane is DC 50, and I only have +20, it's impossible. But I know how much better I need to get to make it possible. I can understand what I need to do to solve the problem, and build solutions around that. Whereas if the DC is "the DM says it's impossible", I don't have anything to work with. Maybe I can ask him why it's impossible, but at that point why not just give a DC?


Other players, some were around from day one, but the bulk are the newer players, will never accept their character death or anything else heaping to the character they don't like.

I have never met a player like that. I have met people who object to the various Gygaxian hosebeasts that have been grandfathered into the game, but those things actually are dumb and bad.

Telok
2020-05-02, 11:17 PM
I have never met a player like that. I have met people who object to the various Gygaxian hosebeasts that have been grandfathered into the game, but those things actually are dumb and bad.

I've met people like that. I've also met people who hit both ends of the spectrum depending mainly on how much time and effort it takes to make a character.

It took maybe than 10 minutes to roll up a Paranoia character on the first try. The edition I run that's about fifteen d20 rolls and table look-ups, ten choices of good/bad sub-skills, and a funny name. It took the same people over an hour to make their first 5e characters. Thats reading at least the first couple entries in all the lists of races, classes, powers, backgrounds, etc., then equipment lists and selection, names, etc.

They aren't new players though. Lots of 3.p, 4e, and runs through Traveller, Champions, ShadowRun, a couple other games. If char gen takes ten minutes they accept getting a leg chopped off, turned to stone, or blown up when someone shoots their belt of grenades. If char gen takes an hour they complain about the same things.

Kesnit
2020-05-03, 05:59 AM
But the truth was that the ex-paladin PC had fallen recently, and had a magic bag that would make a useless copy of any item placed in it. He had stolen all their magic and left useless copies.

But since they never found that out, they always thought the DM had been unfair to them.

I wonder how many stories of horror DMs were similar situations. More importantly, there is a long continuum of situations from this one, to DMs who took actions because a character was too powerful, to DMs who were actually a little unfair, to the clichéd "killer DM". And they might all be accused of being a killer DM.

There is a lot of context missing in this story. Are custom magic items like that bag common in this DM's world? If so, would the party have reason to know that such items exist? Had the players ever encountered that type of item OOC before? Were the players given a chance to roll to see if the PCs to know that the items exist, even if the players didn't know?

If the answer to all of those is yes, then that is on the players (and apparently a bad roll) and the DM didn't set out to screw them over. If the answer to any is no, then that is all on the DM. It is the DM's responsibility to explain the world to their players, give their players a chance to understand the world when new things are encountered, and understand that the PCs actually live in the world and have more knowledge than the players.


And furthermore, your example of poor positioning is rather lame, if only because that is just blind GM'ing to not notice that someone is closer to some effect, than someone else. I could not imagine this actually occurring in actual play, with an actual map, with actual people. However, in this scenario, I'd just retcon it. Tear off the bandage, admit the mistake, and move on with your pixie in your now three-armed fighter's rogue's pocket. I believe you might need to build stronger examples that aren't just "bad spacing" and "player's not reading their sheets." :smallconfused:

I have seen this kind of scenario; the DM screwed up the map and, when I realized it, refused to let me correct my PCs actions because he doesn't allow retcons. The DM was using the wrong sized base for two monsters and placed one of them in the wrong place. Because of that, I thought I had both of them locked down and did not move on my turn. When the monster's turn came up (same round), one walked away from me. I stopped the DM and tried to use my interrupt to keep the monster where it was. That is when the DM said the positioning was wrong and the monster was just out of my reach. Had I have known that, I would have been able to take a 5-foot step on my turn to correctly position myself. Because I was trusting the map, I didn't take that step. The monster just walked away and there was nothing I could do about it.

EggKookoo
2020-05-03, 06:21 AM
You could. I imagine many, even most, of the people in this thread could. But that's not a representative sample of DMs. The rules don't exist solely for people who spend a significant fraction of their free time arguing about D&D on the internet. They also exist for the guy who picked up D&D because he thought Stranger Things was cool. And that guy does not have the knowledge or the skill to be able to effectively work up a list of DCs, or a set of encounter guidelines. So we rely on professional game designers to do that for us, because we expect that a team of experts who have several years to work on a production will produce better outcomes than one guy who's trying to make up an answer fast enough that the game keeps moving.

That guy is almost certainly not creating his own content. He's putting his players through Phandelver or Yawning Portal or something, and published content provides DCs for any task put in front of the PCs. Sure, the PCs could go off the rails and now he's finding himself having to come up with DCs on the fly, but in my experience newbie players don't really do that. Most new players that I've played with have no real internalized clue that they're free to do whatever they want. They often look to the DM for a kind of "what do I do next?" guidance. So sure, in some cases you can have new players running around in a sandbox and making ad hoc rulings on day 1, but it's not likely.

And I know it's not always possible, but a player completely new to D&D should spend time playing before becoming a DM. Find a local gaming group. Or maybe try some online games. At the very least, watch some streaming games on YT to get a sense of how it works. There are so many resources nowadays.


What I want is a list that is robust, and based on reasoned analysis of how difficult things should be. And I want to not have to write it up myself, because "how does the rules engine work" should not be the DM's job. I don't want to figure out how hard it is to climb a pine tree, I want to create a compelling world where I and the rest of my group can create engaging stories. And having an objective list helps with that because it gives people a framework to understand that world and take actions in it.

Sorry, vast difference in worldview here. "How does the rules engine work" is an absolutely essential component of a DM's job. The DMG (in pretty much all editions) has whole sections on explaining how the rules work and how to expand on them. I don't think you're DMing D&D fully if you're ignoring that. It's baked into the game that you will be taking part in the rules-management for your table. This has never been more true than now, with this edition.

This is doubly true if you're creating your own adventuring content. You could maybe get away from rules theory if you stuck purely to published content. But as soon as you start building out your own custom setting, you're going to have to deal with it. That means deciding DCs for things. If you don't like that, there are ways you can offload it, like find someone else's DC list. Or adapt the 3e ones. Or just replicate what you've seen in official published content. But it's gotta get done.

I agree, btw, that the 5e DMG is a mess of presentation, and that goes for the section on determining DCs. I think they could clean that up and explain the process better.


Yes, you can. That doesn't make it a good idea. You can have your 1st level party get slapped around by a Great Wyrm Red Dragon. But that doesn't make doing that good DMing. The reasons the guidelines exist is to try to push DMs -- most of whom are actually not very good at on-the-spot improvisation -- towards good outcomes. Providing guidelines for difficulty makes it more like that, when you hit something the guidelines don't cover, you get a good result.

My point is that after providing pages of DC guidelines, the 3e DMG outright tells the DM that they're not bound to those DCs and can set them to anything. Yet players are going to see those DCs and insist the DM stick to them. It's almost like it was set up to provoke conflict at the table.


That's backwards. Saying "it's impossible" is what's creating BS. If the check to climb a flat wall in a hurricane is DC 50, and I only have +20, it's impossible. But I know how much better I need to get to make it possible. I can understand what I need to do to solve the problem, and build solutions around that. Whereas if the DC is "the DM says it's impossible", I don't have anything to work with. Maybe I can ask him why it's impossible, but at that point why not just give a DC?

I think because in most cases, you're not going to do that thing again. My impression is that the 3e DMG is saying to add 20 or so to the DC as a circumstantial penalty. You normally can do Task X at DC 15. But because of Y, it's now DC 35, which, looking at your stats, we can see isn't possible for you to reach. You're probably not going to come back to this place in 10 or whatever levels and try again. There's nothing really to work up toward.

So why am I giving you a DC? What are you going to do with that information? That DC is the BS.

King of Nowhere
2020-05-03, 07:32 AM
I have seen this kind of scenario; the DM screwed up the map and, when I realized it, refused to let me correct my PCs actions because he doesn't allow retcons. The DM was using the wrong sized base for two monsters and placed one of them in the wrong place. Because of that, I thought I had both of them locked down and did not move on my turn. When the monster's turn came up (same round), one walked away from me. I stopped the DM and tried to use my interrupt to keep the monster where it was. That is when the DM said the positioning was wrong and the monster was just out of my reach. Had I have known that, I would have been able to take a 5-foot step on my turn to correctly position myself. Because I was trusting the map, I didn't take that step. The monster just walked away and there was nothing I could do about it.

this seems very convenient. his monster was moved away from you because it was misplaced, but you were not allowed to be repositioned accordingly.

I made plenty of mistakes at my table (as everyone else, i'm sure), including a pc dead from a spell because we miscalculated the saving throw modifier and another pc not dead from a spell because we wrongly assumed that implosion would be stopped by death ward, but the retcon has never been done out of convenience.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-03, 07:51 AM
DC guidelines are fine and even useful to have in isolation, but there's a reason they didn't put them in the book, and that's because these things don't realistically exist in isolation. No matter how much you repeat that the DC guidelines with trees, walls and locks and whatever else are guidelines and suggestions, the table culture of the prior editions made people take those suggestions as an ultimate simulationist stone commandment, and feel the need to challenge the DM on his numbers vs the books "suggestion" whenever he wants to deviate even slightly. To push and create a change in the table culture for the new edition, the "guideline" "suggestions" had to be absent entirely.

NigelWalmsley
2020-05-03, 08:06 AM
That guy is almost certainly not creating his own content.

At some point he will. There's a spectrum, and plenty of people are going to start writing their own adventures before they're comfortable writing their own rules. We gain nothing by making things harder for them.


This has never been more true than now, with this edition.

Yes, that is a flaw of the current edition. Requiring people to rely on ad hoc improvisation adds an additional burden to DMs, and is a generally poor fit for the type of game D&D is. We don't expect that we'll improvise the monsters, or the spells, or the classes, or the feats by the seat of our pants.


This is doubly true if you're creating your own adventuring content. You could maybe get away from rules theory if you stuck purely to published content. But as soon as you start building out your own custom setting, you're going to have to deal with it.

No you don't. You can create custom content by combining published content in new ways. Just as creating your own combat encounters doesn't require you to create your own monsters, creating custom adventures doesn't require you to make up a bunch of DCs. If you put a wall in your adventure, it is entirely acceptable for that wall to simply use the default DCs for climbing walls. And even when you do, having existing examples helps ensure that the DCs you create are consistent. It is much, much easier to decide how difficult something should be if you have examples to base your decision on.


My point is that after providing pages of DC guidelines, the 3e DMG outright tells the DM that they're not bound to those DCs and can set them to anything. Yet players are going to see those DCs and insist the DM stick to them. It's almost like it was set up to provoke conflict at the table.

Yes, and players are going to see the CR guidelines and insist that DMs stick to them. The guidelines don't create conflict. Arbitrary DM decisions create conflict. What the guidelines do is create an expectation of how the game should work so that the players have a way to push back. It's true that the DM can add 20 to a DC if he wants too. But he should exercise that power very, very carefully, because overusing it can cause serious problems for the game.


You're probably not going to come back to this place in 10 or whatever levels and try again. There's nothing really to work up toward.

I could come back with circumstantial bonuses worth +20. But why wouldn't I come back in 10 levels? You just told me that whatever it is I'm trying to do is appropriate for someone 10 levels higher than me. If that's something I want to do -- and seeing as I'm trying to do it, one would think it is -- why wouldn't I come back and do it when I can? What giving me a DC does is tell me how to accomplish what I want. It lets me make an informed decision about how to achieve my goal. Just saying "you can do that" only shuts me down.

EggKookoo
2020-05-03, 09:35 AM
At some point he will. There's a spectrum, and plenty of people are going to start writing their own adventures before they're comfortable writing their own rules. We gain nothing by making things harder for them.

Of course he will, and at that point he's no longer that "guy who saw Stranger Things." He's evolved into an adept DM who is beginning to feel comfortable making his own mechanics decisions. Until he's reached that point, though, he has plenty of published content to work with that provides these things for him.

If he leaps ahead of his own comfort level, well, that happens. The solution should be to encourage him to not do that.


Yes, that is a flaw of the current edition. Requiring people to rely on ad hoc improvisation adds an additional burden to DMs, and is a generally poor fit for the type of game D&D is. We don't expect that we'll improvise the monsters, or the spells, or the classes, or the feats by the seat of our pants.

Well, I do. I mean, maybe not "seat of the pants" if I can help it. But I customize monsters left and right. I throw off-CR encounters at my party. I don't tend to modify existing spells, classes, or feats, but I do make magic items (usually limited-use or even just one-off) that produce modified effects of existing spells. Just last session, I gave an NPC guard a "spellbook" filled mostly with gibberish. The backstory was that he idolized his boss, who was a spellcaster, and tried to mimic what he was doing with his own book. After the party killed him and took the book, the artificer spent a short rest reading through the chicken scratching and realized there were the disparate components to produce a single 1st-level casting of chromatic orb that used poison damage, and the material component was the book itself (destroyed upon use). They still have it, waiting for the right time to use it.

Just an example but yeah, I mess with custom things all the time.

Likewise, I'll give monsters different weapons or armor or whatever, just to shake things up. I try to keep the CR from getting too far out of hand but I don't obsessively balance it. CRs, like DCs, are just so fuzzy and so subservient to the dice that it's not worth the effort beyond a broad-brush approach.


No you don't. You can create custom content by combining published content in new ways. Just as creating your own combat encounters doesn't require you to create your own monsters, creating custom adventures doesn't require you to make up a bunch of DCs. If you put a wall in your adventure, it is entirely acceptable for that wall to simply use the default DCs for climbing walls. And even when you do, having existing examples helps ensure that the DCs you create are consistent. It is much, much easier to decide how difficult something should be if you have examples to base your decision on.

There must be published adventures that present various DCs, then. If you're combining published content, that would be part of that, no?

And even if you had your DC list, how long before you encounter a task that isn't on it? Despite the pages of DC charts in the 3e DMG, I can think of dozens of things that aren't covered by it. Or are covered by it but I'd have to come up with a reasonable circumstance modifier on the fly.


Yes, and players are going to see the CR guidelines and insist that DMs stick to them. The guidelines don't create conflict. Arbitrary DM decisions create conflict. What the guidelines do is create an expectation of how the game should work so that the players have a way to push back.

Look, the DMG says "It's your job (DM) to set DCs. Here are some suggestions, but you are free to use whatever you want. The only actual DC rules involve spell saves and monster abilities. Everything else -- literally everything else -- is '10 to 20. When in doubt use 15'." That's what the 3e DMG says. It does not say "Hey, players, those DC suggestions in the Dungeon Master's Guide? Yeah, lock your DM down to those suckers. Push back. You're right!" The DC charts in the DMG are there to help the DM make a choice when he doesn't know what he wants to do, not to restrict him when he does.

If the players disagree with the DM, who is just playing by the rules and deciding his own DCs and either using the guidelines or not, they're the ones creating conflict.


It's true that the DM can add 20 to a DC if he wants too. But he should exercise that power very, very carefully, because overusing it can cause serious problems for the game.

It's presented in the 3e DMG as a way to communicate to the players that a given task is impossible. I mean it literally says, "For example, you can decide that a task is practically impossible and modify the roll or the DC by 20." So yeah, you would only use it when the player is attempting something they can't actually do.


I could come back with circumstantial bonuses worth +20. But why wouldn't I come back in 10 levels? You just told me that whatever it is I'm trying to do is appropriate for someone 10 levels higher than me. If that's something I want to do -- and seeing as I'm trying to do it, one would think it is -- why wouldn't I come back and do it when I can? What giving me a DC does is tell me how to accomplish what I want. It lets me make an informed decision about how to achieve my goal. Just saying "you can do that" only shuts me down.

It comes from a mindset common among players that they attempt an action by making a roll. If you want to do something and the DC would work out to be something impossible, I'll tell you you try and it doesn't work, or something along those lines. No dice involved. Sure, I can say the DC is 50 or whatever, if that makes you happy. It's the same thing. Except that if you have the mindset that making the roll is the equivalent of attempting the action, you might think that by saying "it's impossible" I'm preventing you from even trying. That's not how actions and checks are presented in 5e. You can try anything you want and you don't need the DM's permission. The DM decides if the thing you're trying has a possible result (e.g. "is it possible to do?"), and if so, tells you the DC and has you make a check to see if you succeed. The check isn't the action, it's determining the results of the action.

I've seen this mindset in action. A lot. Hell, up until a few years ago I wasn't entirely free from it myself. It took switching to 5e to get me to rethink (or, perhaps, formalize my thinking about) how actions and checks work. The table != the fiction.

Zarrgon
2020-05-03, 11:15 AM
I have never met a player like that. I have met people who object to the various Gygaxian hosebeasts that have been grandfathered into the game, but those things actually are dumb and bad.

Well, then you should note you have met players like that: the exact ones you mentioned.


There is a lot of context missing in this story. Are custom magic items like that bag common in this DM's world? If so, would the party have reason to know that such items exist? Had the players ever encountered that type of item OOC before? Were the players given a chance to roll to see if the PCs to know that the items exist, even if the players didn't know?

If the answer to all of those is yes, then that is on the players (and apparently a bad roll) and the DM didn't set out to screw them over. If the answer to any is no, then that is all on the DM. It is the DM's responsibility to explain the world to their players, give their players a chance to understand the world when new things are encountered, and understand that the PCs actually live in the world and have more knowledge than the players.


This showcases a big shift in the Gamer Culture: The Hostile Player. Yes, again they have been around from day one, but they have slowly grown to a large number.

Just look at the idea that the DM must provide "context" to the players. That some how the DM must stop the game and explain everything to the players, likely taking hours. It is an impossible standard to hold a DM too.

And if your just talking about a pointless quick bit where the DM says "magic can do anything", well that is pointless. And if your talking about where the DM specifically give away everything in the game to ruin it, well that ruins the game. When the hostile player forces the DM to say "sigh, bad magic itmes that kill you have a white skull on them", then an hour later a player finds a sword with a white skull on it they leap up and say "Ha, DM I don't touch the sword, thanks for warning me about it!" .

The chance to know is even worse: should each character roll to see if they know everything about everything in the whole game world?

And even if the DM did such things, to whatever level makes the hostile players happy, there is still a good chance that the players still might have bad things happen to their characters.

Again, this comes down to Acceptance: Some players can accept things happening in the game, no matter how much they don't like them. And some players will refuse to accept anything.

kyoryu
2020-05-03, 12:05 PM
I could come back with circumstantial bonuses worth +20. But why wouldn't I come back in 10 levels? You just told me that whatever it is I'm trying to do is appropriate for someone 10 levels higher than me. If that's something I want to do -- and seeing as I'm trying to do it, one would think it is -- why wouldn't I come back and do it when I can? What giving me a DC does is tell me how to accomplish what I want. It lets me make an informed decision about how to achieve my goal. Just saying "you can do that" only shuts me down.

In most systems where denial is based on narrative permission vs. high difficulty levels, it's generally good practice to tell someone what they'd need to do to get past those blocks.



Again, this comes down to Acceptance: Some players can accept things happening in the game, no matter how much they don't like them. And some players will refuse to accept anything.

The idea that all DCs must be justified is kind of exactly this. And it's an illusion. If the GM wants the lock to be DC 50, it'll be DC 50. They'll just have to look up what modifiers make that and then say that.

So, like, why? What's the point in running through those hoops, especially because then said player will likely just say "well that's not realistic to have that there?"

And the stone walls having the same DC to climb? That's presuming all stone walls are precisely the same, and that's ridiculous. If anything, that's more video-gamey than anything.

I mean, if that's how people like to game, good on them. If you like looking at the map and being able to do all the calculations in your head to optimize, fine. But all that info still *comes from the GM*, so nothing is really changing except you're making the GM write everything up in advance, and go through more hoops to "justify" their decisions. It's all just as arbitrary as it is if you ask ad-hoc.

Now, if a GM is arbitrarily using dumb levels of DC to control/railroad/etc? Different story. Don't play with that guy. And, yeah, that is the right answer. No set of rules can make someone that is a jerk into not-a-jerk.

King of Nowhere
2020-05-03, 01:41 PM
The idea that all DCs must be justified is kind of exactly this. And it's an illusion.

i'd say it's not much that they must be justified, but that they must be consistent. the player wants to know that there is some underlying logic.
which i agree it's an illusion. in the end the two guards had very difficult dc to bribe, because one was a slacker and the other was an incorruptible patriot, or perhaps because the dm didn't want you to succeed the second time. either you prepare yourself to listen to an hour-long explanation of the guard backstory, or you decide whether you trust the dm or not.

Telok
2020-05-03, 02:03 PM
Now, if a GM is arbitrarily using dumb levels of DC to control/railroad/etc? Different story. Don't play with that guy. And, yeah, that is the right answer. No set of rules can make someone that is a jerk into not-a-jerk.

So what do I do when the DM is using dumb levels of DCs and "roll to tie shoes" because he has no concept of statistical success rates and the DMG just says "DM decides"? I mean, it's too late now. The guy rage quit dming 5e because he couldn't handle people doing their best to avoid rolling and I don't play 5e with DMs who have less than 5 - 10 years dming xp. But for, you know, future reference when 6e shows up in 2 - 5 years and maybe has the same issue.

Pex
2020-05-03, 02:31 PM
Jerk DMs and jerk players will exist regardless of any rules, but that's not an excuse not to have rules. All stone walls having the same climb DC is a simplification. The players have something to build towards if climbing stone walls is important to them, and the DM doesn't have to think of a number for every stone wall that will ever exist in the campaign. If for some reason one particular stone wall has a different DC the reason is an important one. It's something the DM designed in the encounter. If the player asks why it's different then his character can investigate it. It might be obvious as soon as he attempts to climb, such as coated in a slippery substance. It might require the character to investigate specifically for the reason. Perhaps the stone is an illusion covering smooth adamantium. Only the jerk player says the DM is Doing It Wrong just as it's only the jerk DM who makes every stone wall DC No to climb forever because he doesn't want PCs to climb walls. They don't matter when it comes to wanting guidelines on the DC to climb a stone wall.

kyoryu
2020-05-03, 03:59 PM
So what do I do when the DM is using dumb levels of DCs and "roll to tie shoes" because he has no concept of statistical success rates and the DMG just says "DM decides"? I mean, it's too late now. The guy rage quit dming 5e because he couldn't handle people doing their best to avoid rolling and I don't play 5e with DMs who have less than 5 - 10 years dming xp. But for, you know, future reference when 6e shows up in 2 - 5 years and maybe has the same issue.

You talk to the dude. You have rules that say DC is up to the GMs, but explain why and when to call for rules. You ask for specific things, and explain why.


Jerk DMs and jerk players will exist regardless of any rules, but that's not an excuse not to have rules. All stone walls having the same climb DC is a simplification. The players have something to build towards if climbing stone walls is important to them, and the DM doesn't have to think of a number for every stone wall that will ever exist in the campaign. If for some reason one particular stone wall has a different DC the reason is an important one. It's something the DM designed in the encounter. If the player asks why it's different then his character can investigate it. It might be obvious as soon as he attempts to climb, such as coated in a slippery substance. It might require the character to investigate specifically for the reason. Perhaps the stone is an illusion covering smooth adamantium. Only the jerk player says the DM is Doing It Wrong just as it's only the jerk DM who makes every stone wall DC No to climb forever because he doesn't want PCs to climb walls. They don't matter when it comes to wanting guidelines on the DC to climb a stone wall.

You should have guidelines, for sure, and I know of no game that doesn't provide them. SO that's a bit of a red herring?

But I still don't have the assumption that two stone walls are the same. Stone walls vary incredibly. You still seem to be making the assumption that "stone walls should have the same DC unless there is a specific reason". And I don't think that's necessary, in general. It might be how you want to play, and that's cool.

Jay R
2020-05-03, 04:43 PM
There is a lot of context missing in this story. Are custom magic items like that bag common in this DM's world? If so, would the party have reason to know that such items exist? Had the players ever encountered that type of item OOC before? Were the players given a chance to roll to see if the PCs to know that the items exist, even if the players didn't know?

Yes, there is a lot of context missing; I will try to add some of it. Buy you have implicitly (and accidentally) added a lot of modern context that doesn't apply to the early culture of this 1975 game of original D&D.

Nobody in the group, including the DM, had even heard of D&D three months before this occurred. Of roughly twelve players, only four owned the rules, and virtually all of the rest had never even read the rules. There was an idea floating around (not universally accepted) that players who weren't DMs shouldn't ever look at the rules at all, or they would have lots of meta-knowledge that their characters wouldn't know. A few years later, when AD&D first game out, Gygax specifically said that players should not read anything but the Players' Handbook, for exactly that reason.

The assumption of the game was that adventurers were extremely rare, that magic items were extremely rare, that there were no magic shops, and that there were no merchants who could tell you what kinds of items existed. Most magic items were found, in the dungeons of long-abandoned castles, or in the hoards of dragons who had had them for centuries. High level spells like Legend Lore or Commune were available for higher level characters to find out about such things.

We knew that deep in the forest was a ruined castle, and that people who entered it almost never came back out. There were rumors that great treasures were there, but what kind of treasures? Nobody knew.

The DMs I knew believed that custom items were essential, to keep players who had read the rules from knowing what items might exist. That bag was one of three custom items I knew of by the end of my fourth adventure.

None of the players had ever encountered [I]any magic item OOC before, unless you count descriptions of items in novels. This bag was as unknown to them as a bag of holding or a bag of tricks.

Nobody had the idea that characters (and therefore players) had the right to know what kind of items existed.

So at the very least, the players did not expect to know every kind of magic item that existed. Did they know about custom items? I have no idea, but at that point in the game (my third or fourth adventure) I knew of at least three.

They did try to research it. They just researched the wrong thing.

As far as I know, there was no roll. There couldn't be, unless the DM invented that rule on the spot; there was no equivalent of a Spellcraft or Knowledge(arcana) skill. Most characters were assumed to have grown up on a farm or in a small village, or as a cleric's acolyte or magic-user's apprentice. They would have no knowledge of the mystic lore of bygone ages. Magic was supposed to be mysterious. The game was learning about the world through exploration.


If the answer to all of those is yes, then that is on the players (and apparently a bad roll) and the DM didn't set out to screw them over. If the answer to any is no, then that is all on the DM. It is the DM's responsibility to explain the world to their players, give their players a chance to understand the world when new things are encountered, and understand that the PCs actually live in the world and have more knowledge than the players.

First of all, the DM did not "set out to screw them over". The DM didn't plan this action when he invented the magic item. The idea came entirely from the player with the ex-paladin PC.

The DM told them that they woke up under the care of a cleric. The cleric told them that a man identifying himself as a paladin brought them in and paid to have them resurrected, and then left before they woke up. When they tried to use their items, the items didn't work. Telling them anything else would have been meta-knowledge. More than that, telling them what their characters didn't know would have been the DM setting out to screw over the player of the ex-paladin.

There was only one person with any knowledge of what happened to them out there (the ex-paladin), and it never occurred to them to go looking for him.

They spent all of their efforts trying to figure out how being turned to stone could make their items stop working. That was [I]their assumption. The DM never told them that's what happened. He just told them that the items didn't work. I wasn't there when they tested the items, so I can't be sure, but that DM was usually very precise about his wording. So I suspect he would say things like "That wand in your hand doesn't work," and never identifying it as the wand they had had a week earlier.

In any event, the DM didn't set out to screw the players. He simply didn't prevent another payer from screwing them. He adjudicated it fairly and honestly, telling them what their characters knew, and withholding what their characters did not know.

Zarrgon
2020-05-03, 04:46 PM
i'd say it's not much that they must be justified, but that they must be consistent. the player wants to know that there is some underlying logic.
which i agree it's an illusion. in the end the two guards had very difficult dc to bribe, because one was a slacker and the other was an incorruptible patriot, or perhaps because the dm didn't want you to succeed the second time. either you prepare yourself to listen to an hour-long explanation of the guard backstory, or you decide whether you trust the dm or not.

The thing here is that wanting consistency is wrong. The idea that something in the game will always be exactly the same is a silly idea. D&D is a complicated game. And the player that wants "consistency" does not seem to grasp logic, or the game rules. If they could, they might grasp the concept that everything will always have different DC's all the time for lots of reasons. The player has he character bribe one guard that had a low DC...but why does the player then think ''oh well for the game to be consistent EVERY guard in the world must have that same low DC"?



If for some reason one particular stone wall has a different DC the reason is an important one. It's something the DM designed in the encounter. If the player asks why it's different then his character can investigate it. It might be obvious as soon as he attempts to climb, such as coated in a slippery substance. It might require the character to investigate specifically for the reason. Perhaps the stone is an illusion covering smooth adamantium.

This touches on both my Player Acceptance and Hostile Player points.

One type of player can just accept whatever the DC is and keep playing. The other type demands to know why the DC is X.

The problem is that the player might not be able to figure out the DC AND the character might not be able to roll to know or rolls and fails. So what then? Does the player just accept the that DC is X, but they don't know why? Do they whine and cry and try and force the DM to tell then the secret of the DC? Do they turn around and attack the game rules because their character does not know something? Do they ever get to "accept it and move on"?

And the Hostile Player is just down right crazy as they sit there and say "everything the DM does is against me!"

NigelWalmsley
2020-05-03, 05:21 PM
Of course he will, and at that point he's no longer that "guy who saw Stranger Things." He's evolved into an adept DM who is beginning to feel comfortable making his own mechanics decisions. Until he's reached that point, though, he has plenty of published content to work with that provides these things for him.

Yes, like the lists of DCs. Your point appears to be "we don't need published examples because the people who can't make decisions on their own have published examples", which astute observes may note is entirely nonsensical.


And even if you had your DC list, how long before you encounter a task that isn't on it? Despite the pages of DC charts in the 3e DMG, I can think of dozens of things that aren't covered by it. Or are covered by it but I'd have to come up with a reasonable circumstance modifier on the fly.

That's a false choice. Yes, even with guidelines, you will need to exercise judgement. But having guidelines makes it easier to use good judgement. If you know that climbing a rough wall is DC 15, it's going to be easier for you to give a good answer when a player asks "hey, what's the DC to climb this smooth wall".


If the players disagree with the DM, who is just playing by the rules and deciding his own DCs and either using the guidelines or not, they're the ones creating conflict.

No, they aren't. The DM is creating conflict by privileging his ideas for the game unduly. The idea that the DM just gets to make up whatever he wants and the players just need to deal with it is incredibly toxic for the game. It is by far the single most effective way to destroy a gaming group.


It comes from a mindset common among players that they attempt an action by making a roll. If you want to do something and the DC would work out to be something impossible, I'll tell you you try and it doesn't work, or something along those lines. No dice involved. Sure, I can say the DC is 50 or whatever, if that makes you happy. It's the same thing.

No, it isn't. If you can do it by getting a bigger bonus, that is different from not being able to do it. Like, obviously. I'm really confused about how you don't get this, because "things that are different are not the same" is the kind of insight so obvious I'm tempted to pull out a dictionary.


Well, then you should note you have met players like that: the exact ones you mentioned.

No, I've encountered bad design. The players who object to getting screwed over by badly written rules are not bad players, and your implication that they are is insulting both to them, and to anyone who might care about the quality of the rules. No matter what side of the screen you're on, you are served by the game working well, and harmed by it working poorly. Arbitrary challenges that require players to "go along" harm the game.


Just look at the idea that the DM must provide "context" to the players. That some how the DM must stop the game and explain everything to the players, likely taking hours. It is an impossible standard to hold a DM too.

Wow, imagine that. When playing a game about exploring a fictional world, you might want to know how things in that world work. I must say I've never before heard "the players want to learn more about the game world" described as a problem, but there you are.


When the hostile player forces the DM to say "sigh, bad magic itmes that kill you have a white skull on them", then an hour later a player finds a sword with a white skull on it they leap up and say "Ha, DM I don't touch the sword, thanks for warning me about it!" .

Oh, look, the player learned about the world and used that information to make an informed decision that effectively represented their characters interests. Once again, I cannot imagine how this is supposed to be a problem.


The idea that all DCs must be justified is kind of exactly this. And it's an illusion. If the GM wants the lock to be DC 50, it'll be DC 50. They'll just have to look up what modifiers make that and then say that.

That's not how people work. There is absolutely a difference between "this is the DC to unlock a door, you can change it" and "the DC to unlock a door is whatever you want". If you provide examples to anchor people, they will tend to stay close to those examples.


Now, if a GM is arbitrarily using dumb levels of DC to control/railroad/etc? Different story. Don't play with that guy. And, yeah, that is the right answer. No set of rules can make someone that is a jerk into not-a-jerk.

Of course not. But what rules can do is help people who are well-intentioned, but have limited levels of skill, patience, or system mastery make better decisions. We don't have pre-written monster stats because it's impossible to create your own monsters, we have them because we think that having established challenges makes it easier to run the game, and that even if you are going to create your own monsters, having examples makes that easier.


The thing here is that wanting consistency is wrong.

Once again, this is nonsense. Wanting the world to behave in predictable, consistent ways is not only right, it is a necessary precondition to effective roleplay. If the results of your actions aren't consistent, you can't make informed decisions, which is necessary to effectively answer "what would my character do".


One type of player can just accept whatever the DC is and keep playing. The other type demands to know why the DC is X.

Oh no! A player cares about the game, and wants to understand how things work. I can only assume they will use this knowledge for evil, perhaps by adapting their plan to suit the particular circumstances they face. Clearly, they should be kicked out of the group for refusing to "go along".

Telok
2020-05-03, 06:36 PM
You talk to the dude. You have rules that say DC is up to the GMs, but explain why and when to call for rules. You ask for specific things, and explain why.

Well I tend to have a rather hard time convincing people of stuff, even when I provide evidence and references. Doubly so when it's a new DM who is having to write his own skill DCs on the fly and thinks he's doing great because he has no idea how probabilites work.

Actually now that I think about it my talking to him may have been part of why he quit DMing. So that's maybe a bit counter productive?


You should have guidelines, for sure, and I know of no game that doesn't provide them. SO that's a bit of a red herring?

But I still don't have the assumption that two stone walls are the same. Stone walls vary incredibly. You still seem to be making the assumption that "stone walls should have the same DC unless there is a specific reason". And I don't think that's necessary, in general. It might be how you want to play, and that's cool.
That's a bit of a strawman because Pex didn't say that all stone walls should have the same DC. He doesn't know what the baseline assumption of the game is for any particular wall and would like to know what the people who wrote the game intended beyond "DM makes up a random number".

You can default to 15 because that's the number in the middle and therefore the normal/average DC. You could want the PCs to be extra heroic and make it automatic. You could have a bad back and make it 21 because climbing is hard (yes, I played with that guy). And I could DM an AL game and make all rolls to talk to NPCs 21+1d4 becausr convincing people is hard to do.

Zarrgon
2020-05-03, 08:05 PM
Wow, imagine that. When playing a game about exploring a fictional world, you might want to know how things in that world work. I must say I've never before heard "the players want to learn more about the game world" described as a problem, but there you are.

But your crossing here: how is exploring the role playing fictional world tied to the games mechanical crunch? Are you really "exploring" to find out the mechanical details of the game? Are you really going to a new land and saying "hum, wonder what the DCto climb that tree is?"




Oh, look, the player learned about the world and used that information to make an informed decision that effectively represented their characters interests. Once again, I cannot imagine how this is supposed to be a problem.

Again you are crossing things here. You seem to be describing a dull mechanical game where the players find out mechanical game information....and then what? Metagame?




That's not how people work. There is absolutely a difference between "this is the DC to unlock a door, you can change it" and "the DC to unlock a door is whatever you want". If you provide examples to anchor people, they will tend to stay close to those examples.

Um...if "this is the DC to unlock a door, you can change it", then is not "the DC to unlock a door is whatever you want"? You seem to be saying the same thing.




Of course not. But what rules can do is help people who are well-intentioned, but have limited levels of skill, patience, or system mastery make better decisions. We don't have pre-written monster stats because it's impossible to create your own monsters, we have them because we think that having established challenges makes it easier to run the game, and that even if you are going to create your own monsters, having examples makes that easier.

That is not why there are monster stats though....

Monsters have stats for new DMs, below average DMs and "don't have enough time" DMs to use.....and maybe most of all: To sell more monster books :)

A lot of DMs, once they get to the average level of DM skill make their own monsters.




Once again, this is nonsense. Wanting the world to behave in predictable, consistent ways is not only right, it is a necessary precondition to effective roleplay. If the results of your actions aren't consistent, you can't make informed decisions, which is necessary to effectively answer "what would my character do".

Except predictable and consistent make no sense for an RPG. And if your "predicting" things in an RPG....you are metagaming too. You think it's a good thing when you "predict remember" all the game mechanics about something and then use it to your characters advantage in the game?

And how do you get "consistent" from a game with infinity built right in? Like if a character climbs a small apple tree (DC 10) then you "consistently" expect all trees in the game to be (DC 10)?




Oh no! A player cares about the game, and wants to understand how things work. I can only assume they will use this knowledge for evil, perhaps by adapting their plan to suit the particular circumstances they face. Clearly, they should be kicked out of the group for refusing to "go along".

Well, use the knowledge to metagame and get an unfair advantage.

Look if a player wants to know more about the game rules or understand anything better, they are free to read the rules. That is how it's done.

Kesnit
2020-05-03, 08:15 PM
this seems very convenient. his monster was moved away from you because it was misplaced, but you were not allowed to be repositioned accordingly.

I made plenty of mistakes at my table (as everyone else, i'm sure), including a pc dead from a spell because we miscalculated the saving throw modifier and another pc not dead from a spell because we wrongly assumed that implosion would be stopped by death ward, but the retcon has never been done out of convenience.

How many times did you discover the mistake in the very round it happened? It would not have been as big a deal if the mistake had been discovered after the combat was resolved. In the example I gave, the monster moved right after my PCs turn. No one else had acted, so the retcon would have changed no other PC or NPC actions. The monster would have still been able to try to move, but I would have been able to attempt the lockdown. If I'd failed, combat would have proceeded as it did in reality. If I succeeded, who knows what would have happened?


This showcases a big shift in the Gamer Culture: The Hostile Player. Yes, again they have been around from day one, but they have slowly grown to a large number.

Just look at the idea that the DM must provide "context" to the players. That some how the DM must stop the game and explain everything to the players, likely taking hours. It is an impossible standard to hold a DM too.

Who said anything about hours? Giving the players a summary at the start of a campaign makes more sense than leaving them drifting. Wouldn't it be better to give the players some idea of the world from the start, rather than leave them drifting and with possibly erroneous assumptions?

I would also point out that PCs live in the world and would be expected to know some about how the world works. Of course they aren't all going to know everything, but it doesn't make a lot of sense for an arcane caster who has spent the maximum points possible in Know (Arcane), or a Bard with Bardic Knowledge, to not at least have a chance to know about a magical item.


And if your just talking about a pointless quick bit where the DM says "magic can do anything", well that is pointless.

No, I was talking about a skill check.


And if your talking about where the DM specifically give away everything in the game to ruin it, well that ruins the game.

Who said anything about the DM giving away everything? I am talking about a specific circumstance where a specific event occurred to the PCs.


When the hostile player forces the DM to say "sigh, bad magic itmes that kill you have a white skull on them",

Know (Arcane) or Bardic Knowledge would tell you those things. It's possible no one had applicable skills or they tried and failed their rolls. At least the PCs would have had a chance.


then an hour later a player finds a sword with a white skull on it they leap up and say "Ha, DM I don't touch the sword, thanks for warning me about it!" .

Fighter: Hey, look at this cool sword the deathknight dropped.
Bard (rolling and succeeding on Bardic Knowledge): WAIT! I remember a ballad about a sword like that. According to the ballads, the sword of a deathknight can only be used by Evil. You are not Evil and I am not sure what that sword would do to you.

Again, this is NOT the DM just giving away information. This is using IC knowledge.


The chance to know is even worse: should each character roll to see if they know everything about everything in the whole game world?

In a circumstance in which it is likely that a PC would know the information (even if the player does not), there is no reason for the DM to not tell the player to roll the applicable skill. If the roll fails, the PC doesn't know it and so there is no reason for the DM to reveal anything. But at least the player had a chance to know and act on what their PC could know.


And even if the DM did such things, to whatever level makes the hostile players happy, there is still a good chance that the players still might have bad things happen to their characters.

There is a difference between "I failed the roll and so my PC doesn't know something" and "the DM arbitrarily decided my PC doesn't know something." Both can lead to something bad happening to the PC. But in the first, there was some player agency; there was a chance that the PC would know what to do and therefore avoid the bad thing. In the second, the DM decided that the bad thing was going to happen regardless of that the PCs did or didn't do.


They did try to research it. They just researched the wrong thing.

That was part of the context, and addressed one of the questions I asked. Yes, the PCs did have a chance to find out what happened. They failed, but they had the chance to try. That is very different from the DM just deciding the bad thing happened because it happened.


or as a cleric's acolyte or magic-user's apprentice.

Either one of those could possible have known about magical items from their studies.


The idea came entirely from the player with the ex-paladin PC.

And that was the other point that was not clear in the original story. Maybe I misread it (very possibly), but it seemed to me that the ex-paladin was an NPC created by the DM to get the party out of wherever they were turned to stone and back to the temple and the clerics.

King of Nowhere
2020-05-03, 09:13 PM
The thing here is that wanting consistency is wrong. The idea that something in the game will always be exactly the same is a silly idea. D&D is a complicated game. And the player that wants "consistency" does not seem to grasp logic, or the game rules. If they could, they might grasp the concept that everything will always have different DC's all the time for lots of reasons. The player has he character bribe one guard that had a low DC...but why does the player then think ''oh well for the game to be consistent EVERY guard in the world must have that same low DC"?


no no no, that's not what i mean by consistent.
consistent does not mean "always the same", but that there is an underlying logic.
it means that if bribing this guard is higher dc, it is because of this guard's personality. if climbing this wall is harder, it means this wall is different from the previous one.
in my experience, players will accept sensible reasons. if i tell them "the king's bodyguard would give her life for her duty without flinching, so bribing her or intimidating her is impossible. of course they'd pick someone very loial to be the king's bodyguard. the guards at the gates, on the other hand, are not scanned as hard". well, that's something that my players accept readily. it may even lead to a minigame where they have to gather informations on the guards to figure out which one would be amenable to bribing.
it's not about all being the same, it's about the world making sense.

you must also let them succeed often enough. if most guards can be bribed but occasionally you find mr. pure incorruptible, the players accept it. especially if you have established your foes as a competent organization that would check the guard's loialty and give the most sensitive duties to those they can trust most. because it makes sense.
but if all guards cannot be bribed, they will think you are intentionally sabotaging them, and they won't accept the mr. pure incorruptible not even when it would be justified

Zarrgon
2020-05-03, 10:52 PM
in my experience, players will accept sensible reasons. if i tell them "the king's bodyguard would give her life for her duty without flinching, so bribing her or intimidating her is impossible. of course they'd pick someone very loial to be the king's bodyguard. the guards at the gates, on the other hand, are not scanned as hard". well, that's something that my players accept readily. it may even lead to a minigame where they have to gather informations on the guards to figure out which one would be amenable to bribing.
it's not about all being the same, it's about the world making sense.

But just about all the time the PLAYERS will have to put in the HUGE concentrated effort to discover all that related information. Players that want to know all that information HAVE to play the information mini game.

Though many players refuse to do that. They just automatiacly whine and complain the game is not "fair" or "consistent" whenever they get a DC they don't like.



you must also let them succeed often enough. if most guards can be bribed but occasionally you find mr. pure incorruptible, the players accept it. especially if you have established your foes as a competent organization that would check the guard's loialty and give the most sensitive duties to those they can trust most. because it makes sense.
but if all guards cannot be bribed, they will think you are intentionally sabotaging them, and they won't accept the mr. pure incorruptible not even when it would be justified


This might be another c0lutre difference: But I sure don't think "there should always be a chance", because sometimes there is no chance.

Yes, only a bad or jerk DM would say "nobody can bribe a guard in the whole world". But then you don't want to go to the other extreme that "any guard the PCs come across just so happens to be that one might be a chance to bribe guard..every single time.

In a good game this would be a vase by case basis and that some groups WILL have no guards to bribe or very very few.

So how is saying: In a worldwide sense some guards can never be bribed and some guards can always be bribed...but most guards fall in the middle where they general won't take a bribe unless there are special unique circumstances that change things. As a player you must find such guards and also figure out each ones unique special circumstances.

Pex
2020-05-03, 11:09 PM
You talk to the dude. You have rules that say DC is up to the GMs, but explain why and when to call for rules. You ask for specific things, and explain why.



You should have guidelines, for sure, and I know of no game that doesn't provide them. SO that's a bit of a red herring?

But I still don't have the assumption that two stone walls are the same. Stone walls vary incredibly. You still seem to be making the assumption that "stone walls should have the same DC unless there is a specific reason". And I don't think that's necessary, in general. It might be how you want to play, and that's cool.

5E doesn't. Since this Forum is about RPGs in general it's not as relevant to many specific RPGs, but it is relevant to the philosophy of what an RPG should provide. It's a common debate in the 5E SubForum. Yes, I do think it's necessary. That's the debate.


The thing here is that wanting consistency is wrong. The idea that something in the game will always be exactly the same is a silly idea. D&D is a complicated game. And the player that wants "consistency" does not seem to grasp logic, or the game rules. If they could, they might grasp the concept that everything will always have different DC's all the time for lots of reasons. The player has he character bribe one guard that had a low DC...but why does the player then think ''oh well for the game to be consistent EVERY guard in the world must have that same low DC"?




This touches on both my Player Acceptance and Hostile Player points.

One type of player can just accept whatever the DC is and keep playing. The other type demands to know why the DC is X.

The problem is that the player might not be able to figure out the DC AND the character might not be able to roll to know or rolls and fails. So what then? Does the player just accept the that DC is X, but they don't know why? Do they whine and cry and try and force the DM to tell then the secret of the DC? Do they turn around and attack the game rules because their character does not know something? Do they ever get to "accept it and move on"?

And the Hostile Player is just down right crazy as they sit there and say "everything the DM does is against me!"

In 5E:

It's perfectly fine that every non-magic platemail in every campaign gives AC 18. Every non-magical long sword in every campaign deals 1d8 damage when wielded in one hand. Every Bless spell in every campaign when cast at 1st level gives up to three targets +1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws. Every class ability in every campaign that has a saving throw has a DC of 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency. That's consistency. However, wanting every generic stone wall to have the same climb DC is being hostile. I don't think so.



That's a bit of a strawman because Pex didn't say that all stone walls should have the same DC. He doesn't know what the baseline assumption of the game is for any particular wall and would like to know what the people who wrote the game intended beyond "DM makes up a random number".

You can default to 15 because that's the number in the middle and therefore the normal/average DC. You could want the PCs to be extra heroic and make it automatic. You could have a bad back and make it 21 because climbing is hard (yes, I played with that guy). And I could DM an AL game and make all rolls to talk to NPCs 21+1d4 becausr convincing people is hard to do.

To be fair I did. I want generic stone walls to have a set DC, but I'm willing to accept the DC being different when it's not a generic stone wall. Precisely because the DC is not the same I know there's something special about that wall. It is then not a generic stone wall, and I can investigate why if I care at that particular moment. It's not a generic stone wall because the DM specifically made it so for a reason.

A generic stone wall is scenery. It's there because it's part of a building, city wall, or dungeon. The DM didn't specifically place the stone wall for a reason; it just exists. The DC not being the same is because the DM made a stone wall exist on purpose that's not generic scenery. It's the means for which the player learns his character notices it's not a generic stone wall and can investigate why if it matters to the player.

The player who complains first accusing the DM is being a jerk. That's a metagame problem that doesn't negate the wanting of DC guidelines. Likewise, the DM who sets the DC at 22 at the spur of the moment just because he felt like it but it really is just a generic stone wall is being flippant and I'm more likely to assess the DM is being a jerk. In the unusual case it's not a generic stone wall but the DC is 20 anyway giving no clue or reason for the PC to investigate is odd as in why or what's the point? If the clue to investigate the wall comes later as part of adventure plot point, fine. Here I mean no clue is ever given, and it's not relevant to anything. It's all in the DM's head or adventure notes it's not a generic stone wall and has no affect on the game. Fine I guess since it doesn't impact anything. Hmm. I suppose if the stone wall was from a Wall of Stone spell a spellcaster placed there for a reason is logical, but that could still mean it's a relevant plot point to be discovered later. If it's never relevant while the DC is the same as a generic stone wall does it really matter? Eh, that's getting very situational not important to the point.

Lvl 2 Expert
2020-05-04, 03:50 AM
no no no, that's not what i mean by consistent.
consistent does not mean "always the same", but that there is an underlying logic.
it means that if bribing this guard is higher dc, it is because of this guard's personality. if climbing this wall is harder, it means this wall is different from the previous one.
in my experience, players will accept sensible reasons. if i tell them "the king's bodyguard would give her life for her duty without flinching, so bribing her or intimidating her is impossible. of course they'd pick someone very loial to be the king's bodyguard. the guards at the gates, on the other hand, are not scanned as hard". well, that's something that my players accept readily. it may even lead to a minigame where they have to gather informations on the guards to figure out which one would be amenable to bribing.
it's not about all being the same, it's about the world making sense.

you must also let them succeed often enough. if most guards can be bribed but occasionally you find mr. pure incorruptible, the players accept it. especially if you have established your foes as a competent organization that would check the guard's loialty and give the most sensitive duties to those they can trust most. because it makes sense.
but if all guards cannot be bribed, they will think you are intentionally sabotaging them, and they won't accept the mr. pure incorruptible not even when it would be justified

And then ones every so often there will be a check that's hard for meta reasons. The DM really wants the players to enter through the door so he can do his big reveal scene or close the door and trap them later, so this particular wall/window has a break DC of "what did you roll again? It's 2 higher than that." This is unfair, and comes about because the DM did not plan for every single options the PC's could try and/or is not willing to improvise around their actions in these circumstances. This tool should be avoided when ever possible. But, if this starts looking like favoritism ("the DM is against me") then there's probably an underlying OOC problem somewhere.

EggKookoo
2020-05-04, 05:54 AM
I found some footage of a player working out the precise DC for a task in 5e. You can see right around the 0:57 mark where the dice are rolled.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R-rbzcEM8A

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-04, 08:05 AM
It's perfectly fine that every non-magic platemail in every campaign gives AC 18. Every non-magical long sword in every campaign deals 1d8 damage when wielded in one hand. Every Bless spell in every campaign when cast at 1st level gives up to three targets +1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws. Every class ability in every campaign that has a saving throw has a DC of 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency. That's consistency. However, wanting every generic stone wall to have the same climb DC is being hostile. I don't think so.



That's an interesting comparison, because those are all player-related things. Enemy AC can be anything, Enemy longswords can do variable damage, and enemy spells can do literally anything. These work the same as the variable DC. The game is set up so that players have a set list of tools they use to interact with a infinitely variable world. Those are the "rules". To circle back to the thread, it's the culture of the game (as discussed, in and informed by, the rulebook) that controls the fairness of the obstacles players face and their expected level of success.

EggKookoo
2020-05-04, 08:33 AM
That's an interesting comparison, because those are all player-related things. Enemy AC can be anything, Enemy longswords can do variable damage, and enemy spells can do literally anything. These work the same as the variable DC.

And that encounter your 3rd level party runs into? It could be CR 3. It could be CR 2. It could be CR 4. The DMG offers some guidance on how many hard or medium encounters a typical party might be able to handle in an adventuring day. But it certainly doesn't provide anything like a formula or a way to make it consistent. And reading the sections on encounter creation and balance, it becomes clear that different encounter compositions can have wildly different outcomes, even if their CRs are the same.

kyoryu
2020-05-04, 09:23 AM
5E doesn't. Since this Forum is about RPGs in general it's not as relevant to many specific RPGs, but it is relevant to the philosophy of what an RPG should provide. It's a common debate in the 5E SubForum. Yes, I do think it's necessary. That's the debate.

PHB, page 174. Gives DCs for tasks ranging from "very easy" to "nearly impossible".

Pex
2020-05-04, 10:33 AM
PHB, page 174. Gives DCs for tasks ranging from "very easy" to "nearly impossible".

I know that, but it does not define what makes something easy or hard. Is climbing a stone wall easy or hard? That's DM whim. One DM will say go ahead, climb. Another DM will say roll Athletics DC 10. A third DM will say roll Athletics DC 15. A fourth DM will say roll Athletics DC 20. That's the problem.

Lvl 2 Expert
2020-05-04, 11:13 AM
I know that, but it does not define what makes something easy or hard. Is climbing a stone wall easy or hard? That's DM whim. One DM will say go ahead, climb. Another DM will say roll Athletics DC 10. A third DM will say roll Athletics DC 15. A fourth DM will say roll Athletics DC 20. That's the problem.

It might help to at least within a single campaign try to add some real world references. Something like 10 = hard for an untrained person (baking a cake, performing a cartwheel), 15 = hard for a trained person (calming a runaway horse, cutting down a full sized tree), 20 = hard for a world renowned specialist (an Olympic level sports feat, cracking the Enigma code) etc.

It's still not very accurate. Climbing a wall is probably somewhere around 15, it's a thing that can be done but you don't see it everyday. But personal experience and even just what kind of wall you're imagining can still vary it quite a bit. But it's better that nothing.

On the flip side there are two problems with it. It's immersion breaking, because you're specifically basing this on real world difficulty (because we don't have a good reference for how difficult things should be for a D&D character, which is why the list in the PHB didn't help). And it fails to provide reference for anything D&D characters can do that we simply can't. And I don't even mean the superhuman post-Olympian stuff like "lifting a horse above your head", should that be a 21 or a 30? I'm thinking more like "calming a horse that is being mind controlled by a bad guy" (although you might be tempted to use the spell save DC there) or "carve a statue out of a comatose earth elemental" (is that like rock? What kind of rock? Is it more biological? Can it even be carved? Is this too cruel to even consider?)

I think a lot of DM's already have some kind of system like this in their head, but for those that don't it might be a good addition to the rules as written.

Luccan
2020-05-04, 12:08 PM
It might help to at least within a single campaign try to add some real world references. Something like 10 = hard for an untrained person (baking a cake, performing a cartwheel), 15 = hard for a trained person (calming a runaway horse, cutting down a full sized tree), 20 = hard for a world renowned specialist (an Olympic level sports feat, cracking the Enigma code) etc.

It's still not very accurate. Climbing a wall is probably somewhere around 15, it's a thing that can be done but you don't see it everyday. But personal experience and even just what kind of wall you're imagining can still vary it quite a bit. But it's better that nothing.

On the flip side there are two problems with it. It's immersion breaking, because you're specifically basing this on real world difficulty (because we don't have a good reference for how difficult things should be for a D&D character, which is why the list in the PHB didn't help). And it fails to provide reference for anything D&D characters can do that we simply can't. And I don't even mean the superhuman post-Olympian stuff like "lifting a horse above your head", should that be a 21 or a 30? I'm thinking more like "calming a horse that is being mind controlled by a bad guy" (although you might be tempted to use the spell save DC there) or "carve a statue out of a comatose earth elemental" (is that like rock? What kind of rock? Is it more biological? Can it even be carved? Is this too cruel to even consider?)

I think a lot of DM's already have some kind of system like this in their head, but for those that don't it might be a good addition to the rules as written.

I'd certainly like to see what the DC for "carve a statue out of a comatose earth elemental" is in any edition of DnD. Because I know there isn't an example DC for that in 3e. I mean I guess you could look at provided numbers and extrapolate how difficult you think it should be, but that's apparently wrong when 5e does it with a simpler system, so I can't imagine it's acceptable when 3e does it.

EggKookoo
2020-05-04, 12:29 PM
I know that, but it does not define what makes something easy or hard. Is climbing a stone wall easy or hard? That's DM whim. One DM will say go ahead, climb. Another DM will say roll Athletics DC 10. A third DM will say roll Athletics DC 15. A fourth DM will say roll Athletics DC 20. That's the problem.

Which is, of course, all true for 3e as well. I'm glad we've been having this discussion. I've been finding some great nuggets in the 3e DMG. Check this out:

"When modifying either the roll or the DC, you don't need to tell the players that you are doing so. In fact, in many case, you should not tell them."

And when discussing using alternate saving throws (using unusual ability scores for saves, like Wisdom-based Fort):

"Remember that when you change the way a saving throw works in this fashion, you should dictate when the change comes into play -- it's not up to the player to make this sort of decision. Players may try to rationalize why they should get to use their best ability score modifier on a saving throw that doesn't normally use that ability, but you shouldn't allow this sort of rule change unless you happen to agree with it."

In the first chapter of the DMG:

"When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge."

"Good players will always recognize that you have the ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Dang, 3e!

Now, it does also say this:

"Good DMs know not to change or overturn an existing rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't grow dissatisfied."

Which is correct, I believe, and I think most of us do. I don't think any of us are arguing that DMs (in 5e or whatever) should be able to set DCs willy-nilly without some kind of pushback. But at the same time, if an "official" DC is 12 and I set it to 17 because that just seems more right for my game, I'm acting within the bounds laid out by the third edition DMG, let alone the 5th.

kyoryu
2020-05-04, 01:07 PM
I know that, but it does not define what makes something easy or hard. Is climbing a stone wall easy or hard? That's DM whim. One DM will say go ahead, climb. Another DM will say roll Athletics DC 10. A third DM will say roll Athletics DC 15. A fourth DM will say roll Athletics DC 20. That's the problem.

Which stone wall?
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/RF1DC4/dry-stone-wall-with-stile-built-in-on-the-isle-of-purbeck-dorset-rough-limestone-wall-divides-sloping-coastal-field-against-a-blue-sky-with-a-wind-b-RF1DC4.jpg

https://www.norstoneusa.com/assets/images/gallery/Interior-large-format-stone-wall-entryway.jpg

Are there handholds? Ledges? Windows? Other things to hold onto?

Can you imagine in your head a stone wall that is trivial to climb? How about one that's "impossible" (I mean there's a DC so it's clearly possible)? I can imagine either.

So if a GM tells me that the wall is <x> difficulty to climb, I simply accept that (note bit about accepting or not accepting earlier) and adjust my mental image to match. If another GM tells me that a stone wall is <y> difficulty, then okay. It's not the same stone wall unless we're literally playing the same published adventure.

Again, if you like having the world defined to the point where you know that "wall, stone" has a specific DC, cool on you! But I don't think that it's necessarily logical to assume all stone walls are similar enough that a "standard" DC for stone walls is inherently the best choice, or that not having one places your game into "mother may I" territory.

Zarrgon
2020-05-04, 01:09 PM
In 5E:

It's perfectly fine that every non-magic platemail in every campaign gives AC 18. Every non-magical long sword in every campaign deals 1d8 damage when wielded in one hand. Every Bless spell in every campaign when cast at 1st level gives up to three targets +1d4 to attack rolls and saving throws. Every class ability in every campaign that has a saving throw has a DC of 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency. That's consistency. However, wanting every generic stone wall to have the same climb DC is being hostile. I don't think so.

But none of that happens, right? There are always modifier. Sure you can every generic vague thing has the same base line, but adding in modifiers will always change it. Every vague generic sword starts out at the base 1d8, then applying all the modifiers present. And by the same way all vague generic walls start out at base DC X, then applying all the modifiers present. So each sword will not do exactly the same damage and each wall won't have exactly the same DC: right from the start. They have the same base, but that is it.

And this only goes for a vague generic thing too. Once it is "Klags Sword of Doom" or the "Dark Walls of Castle Bone" you are not talking about anything generic anymore.




To be fair I did. I want generic stone walls to have a set DC, but I'm willing to accept the DC being different when it's not a generic stone wall. Precisely because the DC is not the same I know there's something special about that wall. It is then not a generic stone wall, and I can investigate why if I care at that particular moment. It's not a generic stone wall because the DM specifically made it so for a reason.

Ok, so you agree.



A generic stone wall is scenery. It's there because it's part of a building, city wall, or dungeon. The DM didn't specifically place the stone wall for a reason; it just exists. The DC not being the same is because the DM made a stone wall exist on purpose that's not generic scenery. It's the means for which the player learns his character notices it's not a generic stone wall and can investigate why if it matters to the player.

Well...if it's something a character will interact with...like a wall: It's Not Scenery.



The player who complains first accusing the DM is being a jerk. That's a metagame problem that doesn't negate the wanting of DC guidelines. Likewise, the DM who sets the DC at 22 at the spur of the moment just because he felt like it but it really is just a generic stone wall is being flippant and I'm more likely to assess the DM is being a jerk. In the unusual case it's not a generic stone wall but the DC is 20 anyway giving no clue or reason for the PC to investigate is odd as in why or what's the point? If the clue to investigate the wall comes later as part of adventure plot point, fine. Here I mean no clue is ever given, and it's not relevant to anything. It's all in the DM's head or adventure notes it's not a generic stone wall and has no affect on the game. Fine I guess since it doesn't impact anything. Hmm. I suppose if the stone wall was from a Wall of Stone spell a spellcaster placed there for a reason is logical, but that could still mean it's a relevant plot point to be discovered later. If it's never relevant while the DC is the same as a generic stone wall does it really matter? Eh, that's getting very situational not important to the point.

Well, it is always best for a DM to be intelligent, quick thinking, clever and have deep rules and deep system mastery. They the DM can "just make" any thing any DC and make it all "official". I will grant you the DM that is not any of the things I mentioned will make for a hard game when they just make up crazy stuff and numbers as they are clueless.

Though you are going over board saying that every wall that is not common has to be some massive game plot point. Really? You can't just accept an uncommon wall? Not saying that if you really felt you must you could go on a whole mini quest mini game JUST to find out why one particular wall section in one place has a DC of higher then common. Though you could also say "Well the Dark Stone Walls of Castle Doom are of course not common walls...and you know, just accept it. But you don't need to pause the game for your mini quest.



I know that, but it does not define what makes something easy or hard. Is climbing a stone wall easy or hard? That's DM whim. One DM will say go ahead, climb. Another DM will say roll Athletics DC 10. A third DM will say roll Athletics DC 15. A fourth DM will say roll Athletics DC 20. That's the problem.

But this is the big foundation that RPGS are built on: It is impossible to make rules that cover everything for a complex game, so games like D&D have a DM to make a on site case by case call.

The only other option is to play a lite rules simple game like "easy DCs are 10 and hard DCs are 20, and every single DC in this game must only ever be 10 or 20."


I'd certainly like to see what the DC for "carve a statue out of a comatose earth elemental" is in any edition of DnD. Because I know there isn't an example DC for that in 3e. I mean I guess you could look at provided numbers and extrapolate how difficult you think it should be, but that's apparently wrong when 5e does it with a simpler system, so I can't imagine it's acceptable when 3e does it.

This is a perfect example as to why DMs exist: to make calls and rulings on something like this.

Even if you had a 1,000 page Stone-carving Skill DC Rule book and you went to chapter six "carving statues" you might still beunable to find an exact DC for "carving a statue out of a comatose earth elemental" .

Jay R
2020-05-04, 01:13 PM
I know that, but it does not define what makes something easy or hard. Is climbing a stone wall easy or hard?

Am I the only one here who has climbed several stone walls? Or even looked at several stone walls? Some are trivial, some are easy, some are difficult, and some are pretty much impossible. The same wall can be very hard in one place and trivially easy ten feet over.

"Stone wall" is a generic phrase. There is not a single kind of stone wall. So "climbing a stone wall" cannot have a single standard DC.


IThat's DM whim.

That's a negative way to put it. But I can express the same content without the negativity, like this:

That's a hard judgment call that DMs have to make. That call will be made based on both the DM's mental image of that particular wall, and on the needs of the scenario.

I have had many DMs in the last 45 years, but I don't think I've ever had one who would consider that a call based on whim, rather than on a desire to create an immersive and interesting world.


One DM will say go ahead, climb. Another DM will say roll Athletics DC 10. A third DM will say roll Athletics DC 15. A fourth DM will say roll Athletics DC 20. That's the problem.

That's correct; they will. But that's because one DM is thinking of a ten foot pile of stone, another is thinking of twenty feet of raw stones held by mortar, and a third has in mind thirty feet of carefully carved stone blocks with no crevices. These should have wildly different DCs, because they are wildly different tasks.

Hadrian's Wall has a DC of 5 -- if that. The Great Wall of China has a DC of maybe 20. Some castle walls have a DC of 30 or more. And each one is a "stone wall".

Coming up for a single DC for climbing a stone wall is like trying to find the CR for a unit of five warriors, without knowing if they are 1st level or 20th.


That's the problem.

That's the difference between different walls.

I don't see that there is a problem in having one stone wall in one universe be harder to climb than another stone wall in another universe -- especially given that a stone wall in our own world can be much harder to climb than another.

kyoryu
2020-05-04, 01:19 PM
Well, it is always best for a DM to be intelligent, quick thinking, clever and have deep rules and deep system mastery. They the DM can "just make" any thing any DC and make it all "official". I will grant you the DM that is not any of the things I mentioned will make for a hard game when they just make up crazy stuff and numbers as they are clueless.

Though you are going over board saying that every wall that is not common has to be some massive game plot point. Really? You can't just accept an uncommon wall? Not saying that if you really felt you must you could go on a whole mini quest mini game JUST to find out why one particular wall section in one place has a DC of higher then common. Though you could also say "Well the Dark Stone Walls of Castle Doom are of course not common walls...and you know, just accept it. But you don't need to pause the game for your mini quest.

Practically, if the GM says the wall is "difficulty <x>" and hasn't really described the wall, then I just assume the wall is one that makes sense to have that difficulty. It's pretty easy.

If the GM describes the wall in such a way that it doesn't make sense with the given DC, then I ask.

GM: "Okay, you see a rough stone wall here. DC 25 to climb."
Me: "25? really? That seems pretty high for a wall that you've described as rough, given that other walls have been a lot easier."

Then one of:
GM: "those walls hand a lot more handholds and windows and stuff to use to climb the wall. And this wall may be rough and easy to grab onto, but as soon as you do you see it's in poor repair and is crumbling. It's also a lot higher. So the getting to the top of it without getting messed up by the crumbling bits is going to be really tough."

- or -

GM: "You know what? You're right. It should probably be more like a DC 15."

I see little value in forcing the GM to go through and come up with all of the individual modifiers that would be required to give the DC of 25. "Well, yeah, it's 15 for the base DC. Another +5 because it's crumbling. +2 for lack of windows and features. +3 for height between 20' and 30'" That just seems tedious and for little value.


Am I the only one here who has climbed several stone walls? Or even looked at several stone walls? Some are trivial, some are easy, some are difficult, and some are pretty much impossible. The same wall can be very hard in one place and trivially easy ten feet over.

I posted two a couple of replies up.

Unavenger
2020-05-04, 01:29 PM
Are there handholds? Ledges? Windows? Other things to hold onto?

According to the 3.5 SRD, the wall is very rough if it's a DC 10 wall, a very rough natural rock surface (or about as rough as one) if it's DC 15, uneven and typical of a dungeon wall if it's DC 20, as rough as your average natural rock surface or a brick wall if it's DC 25, and perfectly smooth, flat and vertical if it's DC -.

According to the 5e SRD, FNORD.

kyoryu
2020-05-04, 02:02 PM
According to the 3.5 SRD, the wall is very rough if it's a DC 10 wall, a very rough natural rock surface (or about as rough as one) if it's DC 15, uneven and typical of a dungeon wall if it's DC 20, as rough as your average natural rock surface or a brick wall if it's DC 25, and perfectly smooth, flat and vertical if it's DC -.

According to the 5e SRD, FNORD.

I mean, that's not entirely true. It just ties the DCs to adjectives rather than specific types of wall.

If you think your DM is going to look at a five foot wall that looks like my first picture, and say "yeah, I think that's an Impossible task", then you have GM issues. That's not reasonable.

If you're concerned about whether it's "easy" or "very easy", then... I'd suggest you can make an argument for either one, so either way, why not just roll with it?

I can accept that it's a taste/preference thing, and that's fine. You do you! But I dispute that it is an objective failure of the system. Frankly, I consider it a feature.

Unavenger
2020-05-04, 03:34 PM
I mean, that's not entirely true. It just ties the DCs to adjectives rather than specific types of wall.

If you think your DM is going to look at a five foot wall that looks like my first picture, and say "yeah, I think that's an Impossible task", then you have GM issues. That's not reasonable.

If you're concerned about whether it's "easy" or "very easy", then... I'd suggest you can make an argument for either one, so either way, why not just roll with it?

I can accept that it's a taste/preference thing, and that's fine. You do you! But I dispute that it is an objective failure of the system. Frankly, I consider it a feature.

I mean, I've had three different DMs call what is functionally the same wall "No check", "DC 10" and "DC 15", which is a fairly vast range for a single wall and basically makes the creation of a skill-based character heavily dependent on who's running the game and occasionally what mood they're in that day. I don't see how you can consider a lack of rules for something (apart from the fairly banal observation that a DC 30 check is almost impossible to make, which I could have told you just by looking at the stat bonuses available to PCs) to be a feature. It's more a lack of feature.

Saint-Just
2020-05-04, 04:09 PM
If you think your DM is going to look at a five foot wall that looks like my first picture, and say "yeah, I think that's an Impossible task", then you have GM issues. That's not reasonable.

If you're concerned about whether it's "easy" or "very easy", then... I'd suggest you can make an argument for either one, so either way, why not just roll with it?

I can accept that it's a taste/preference thing, and that's fine. You do you! But I dispute that it is an objective failure of the system. Frankly, I consider it a feature.

Again, even if there isn't a huge variation in DCs, large variation still can be immersion-breaking and make it hard to build characters. See above q. trees. In all three games DMs did not assign individual DCs to individual trees (and given the granularity of D&D I do not believe that trees of the same species and same size category warrant individual DCs). DMs did assign generic DCs but those generic DCs has been vastly different (from 0 to 20).

Many cities (esp. not 100% realistic medieval cities but more kitchensinky cities typical of D&D) would have enough examples of "wall, brick, no handholds, in good repair". So can my 2nd-level rogue scale it by taking 20? Most of the time mundane skills are not supposed to vary between worlds (like reality, unless noted) and yet without examples provided for DM in the book they would inevitably vary.



Hadrian's Wall has a DC of 5 -- if that. The Great Wall of China has a DC of maybe 20. Some castle walls have a DC of 30 or more. And each one is a "stone wall".

Coming up for a single DC for climbing a stone wall is like trying to find the CR for a unit of five warriors, without knowing if they are 1st level or 20th.


You say so and I believe that you are trying to honestly assign DCs to the existing walls. Someone other with slightly less experience may also try to assign DCs to the same walls (again, in unprejudiced manner, not because they want PCs to succeed\fail) and yet give Hadrian's wall DC 10 and Great Wall of China DC 15. Again - trees.



To the both of you - yes, DM can vary target numbers if they want to. But many people do play by the book, especially in such relatively uncontroversial area as climb DCs. If people use house rules in 3.x they are more likely to a) explicitly warn about it, b) know at least a little bit about climbing\diving\lockpicking\etc. 5e forces every DM to invent DCs, there is no fallback position available for those who don't know enough about whatever rules are supposed to cover.

patchyman
2020-05-04, 04:36 PM
You could. I imagine many, even most, of the people in this thread could. But that's not a representative sample of DMs. The rules don't exist solely for people who spend a significant fraction of their free time arguing about D&D on the internet. They also exist for the guy who picked up D&D because he thought Stranger Things was cool. And that guy does not have the knowledge or the skill to be able to effectively work up a list of DCs, or a set of encounter guidelines. So we rely on professional game designers to do that for us, because we expect that a team of experts who have several years to work on a production will produce better outcomes than one guy who's trying to make up an answer fast enough that the game keeps moving.

This is backwards.

The guy who picked up D&D doesn’t have a problem adjudicating DCs. He checks the PHB index: “difficulty classes, table p. 174”. Easy 10, Medium 15, Hard 20, then he picks one. His players succeed or fail. Easy.

It is people who play in multiple games (like Pex) or people who tend to obsess over minutiae (like the type of people who hang out in online fora, myself included), who are more likely to have issues.

EggKookoo
2020-05-04, 05:13 PM
Practically, if the GM says the wall is "difficulty <x>" and hasn't really described the wall, then I just assume the wall is one that makes sense to have that difficulty. It's pretty easy.

We do this with other aspects of the game anyway. Monster A has 10 hit points. Monster B has 30. When was the last time a DM described the in-fiction justifications for that? Especially before a fight starts. And "B took less damage during the fight" isn't really a good example. It's not any different from trying to climb the wall to find out how hard it is.

Earlier, an example came up of a longsword always dealing 1d8 when used in one hand (and medium-sized, I assume). But one hit from that longsword hurts a creature with 8 HP a lot more than it hurts the creature with 80 HP. Yet both attacks deal the same damage. People don't think abstract mechanics be like it is, but it do!

Pex
2020-05-04, 05:14 PM
Let's take a look at 3E.

The DC table gives numbers and example walls or surfaces

DC 0 is a slope too steep to walk and a knotted rope with a wall to brace against.
DC 5 is a rope with a wall to brace against (not knotted), a knotted rope (no wall) or rope trick
DC 10 a surface with ledges to hold onto such as a rough wall or ship's rigging
DC 15 Any surface with adequate hand holds and foot holds like a very rough natural rock surface, tree
DC 20 Uneven surface with hand holds and foot holds - a typical (generic) wall in a dungeon or ruins
DC 25 Overhang or ceiling with hand holds, a rough surface such as a natural rock wall or brick wall
DC No when it's a perfectly flat vertical surface

Oh look, there are modifiers. Lower the DC by 10 where you can brace against two opposite walls.
Lower the DC by 5 if you can brace against a perpendicular wall.
Increase DC by 5 if it's slippery.
The modifiers are cumulative.

Want to climb a wall in a dungeon? DC 20. The wall was made by dwarves so it's extra smooth, DC 25. Want to climb the front of a store made of wood, and there's a porch? Ah, ledges to hold on to. DC 10. Want to climb the wall of Castle Ravenloft to get inside undetected and safely? Plot point, but DC 25 is fine.

That's all I need. I don't need to account for every possible wall make up. There's a benchmark to work with. I want to climb a dungeon wall. The DC is 20. If the DC is not 20 there's a reason. It's slippery. It was constructed better. It's a stone giant's calf.

EggKookoo
2020-05-04, 05:47 PM
The DC is 20.

The example DC is 20. The examples are for when the DM can't work it out, doesn't have time to work it out, or for whatever reason can't be bothered to.

The rule (in 3e) is, the DM decides the DC. The only place where there's an actual DC formula in 3e is for spell saves and monster abilities (similar to 5e with spell saves and passives). Everything else is whatever the DM chooses, with a suggestion to just go with 15 in a pinch. The examples in the DMG are not rules. They are not something the DM is bound by. They are not something meant for the players to use in an argument (if they were meant for the player, they'd be in the PHB). The DMG says the DM can not only choose a DC on a whim, it explicitly says the DM is not obliged to explain his choice to the players at the table. It goes so far as to recommend the DM not explain his choice, and to remind the players that he's the boss (with the caveat to wield that power wisely in order to avoid losing players).

That's all in my 3e DMG.

Saint-Just
2020-05-04, 07:46 PM
The examples in the DMG are not rules. They are not something the DM is bound by. They are not something meant for the players to use in an argument (if they were meant for the player, they'd be in the PHB).

Examples of Climb DCs are in PHB, as are many others (DCs to pick a lock, to make a jump, to Tumble ignoring AoO etc. etc.).

More importantly you seem to be reading antagonistic intent into your opponents' words. What I think is most important is that in absence of examples it's not all that easy to quantify comparative difference of the task (e.g. ignoring AoO is 15, hardest DC we are given for Climb checks is 25, 30 if slippery, meanwhile locks go all way up to 40 (and if your hands are slippery while you are trying to pick a lock I bet it would also increase the difficulty)). Even DMs who are sure that no player would question their decisions may want (and I would go as far as to say that better Dms would want) examples of DCs for different actions, otherwise unless they are both familiar with the activity in question and have a good head for numbers (probability) they may assign DC which would be nonsensical.

EggKookoo
2020-05-04, 08:20 PM
Examples of Climb DCs are in PHB, as are many others (DCs to pick a lock, to make a jump, to Tumble ignoring AoO etc. etc.).

Even so, the DMG is pretty clear that the DM sets those DCs, and those decisions are not to be questioned by the players at the table. I mean, I don't have this attitude at my own table. I'm just pointing out that 3e is no less mother may I than 5e. It's just obfuscated by having a list of examples.


More importantly you seem to be reading antagonistic intent into your opponents' words.

Not from Pex. This issue aside, I find I agree with nearly everything I've seen him post. And I don't even strictly disagree here. I don't think a list of DCs would hurt. I just think that level of detail is counter to what 5e is trying to do, and it isn't some kind of magic bullet. DMs will do what they will, even by the book in 3e. Which is my point in posting those snippets from the 3e DMG.

But I have seen some pretty antagonistic posts in this thread, regarding toxicity and players.


What I think is most important is that in absence of examples it's not all that easy to quantify comparative difference of the task (e.g. ignoring AoO is 15, hardest DC we are given for Climb checks is 25, 30 if slippery, meanwhile locks go all way up to 40 (and if your hands are slippery while you are trying to pick a lock I bet it would also increase the difficulty)).

I'm not sure how important it is to quantify things to a great level of precision. Combat is pretty gamey. And speaking of, it's not a problem to say a level 10 creature is level 10 because it's level 10. Why is it a problem to say a hard wall is a hard wall because it's hard to climb?


Even DMs who are sure that no player would question their decisions may want (and I would go as far as to say that better Dms would want) examples of DCs for different actions, otherwise unless they are both familiar with the activity in question and have a good head for numbers (probability) they may assign DC which would be nonsensical.

There are two things here. One is a request for a consistent set of DCs. The other is for DCs that map to reality. I don't think many people expect the latter, since reality won't conform to a set of 5% challenge increments in the range of D&D DCs. Regarding the former, one thing I do disagree with Pex about, I don't think it's reasonable to insist they be consist across tables. Especially across unrelated tables (like yours and mine). Of course, even if such a list was made, I'd use it only if it already agreed with my own estimations, or more importantly, were useful in creating fun challenges...

Cluedrew
2020-05-04, 08:32 PM
To Pex: Have you ever tried asking a GM for some examples? Like pick some things your character is likely to do and ask for DCs for them? I'm not saying that makes the problem disappear but it could help.

By the way I feel D&D has always kind of left its skill system kind of underdeveloped. So I can believe an attempt at rules light(er) D&D made them a bit too rules light.

Zarrgon
2020-05-04, 08:35 PM
Practically, if the GM says the wall is "difficulty <x>" and hasn't really described the wall, then I just assume the wall is one that makes sense to have that difficulty. It's pretty easy.

If the GM describes the wall in such a way that it doesn't make sense with the given DC, then I ask.


This does not sound so bad as long as you don't over do it. But after a couple levels you will get to magic walls, ans not all magic walls have an easy visual clue.


That's all I need. I don't need to account for every possible wall make up. There's a benchmark to work with. I want to climb a dungeon wall. The DC is 20. If the DC is not 20 there's a reason. It's slippery. It was constructed better. It's a stone giant's calf.

But what good does this small list even do? It lists some common DC's for some common things relating to walls, but it is in no way the final say on every wall in the game. The rules have a lot more to say about walls.

And this might be the big thing: the game should scale up as the characters gain levels. At like 12th your character won't be climbing a 'loose rock wall', it will be something more level appropriate. And that takes you right back to the "DC could be anything".

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-04, 09:27 PM
Examples of Climb DCs are in PHB, as are many others (DCs to pick a lock, to make a jump, to Tumble ignoring AoO etc. etc.).

More importantly you seem to be reading antagonistic intent into your opponents' words. What I think is most important is that in absence of examples it's not all that easy to quantify comparative difference of the task (e.g. ignoring AoO is 15, hardest DC we are given for Climb checks is 25, 30 if slippery, meanwhile locks go all way up to 40 (and if your hands are slippery while you are trying to pick a lock I bet it would also increase the difficulty)). Even DMs who are sure that no player would question their decisions may want (and I would go as far as to say that better Dms would want) examples of DCs for different actions, otherwise unless they are both familiar with the activity in question and have a good head for numbers (probability) they may assign DC which would be nonsensical.

They are in 3e (and 4e), but not in 5e. And the reason for that which is relevant to this thread is that to force a change in the culture of the game moving into the new edition, those kinds of tables needed to be removed.

Pex
2020-05-04, 10:13 PM
The example DC is 20. The examples are for when the DM can't work it out, doesn't have time to work it out, or for whatever reason can't be bothered to.

The rule (in 3e) is, the DM decides the DC. The only place where there's an actual DC formula in 3e is for spell saves and monster abilities (similar to 5e with spell saves and passives). Everything else is whatever the DM chooses, with a suggestion to just go with 15 in a pinch. The examples in the DMG are not rules. They are not something the DM is bound by. They are not something meant for the players to use in an argument (if they were meant for the player, they'd be in the PHB). The DMG says the DM can not only choose a DC on a whim, it explicitly says the DM is not obliged to explain his choice to the players at the table. It goes so far as to recommend the DM not explain his choice, and to remind the players that he's the boss (with the caveat to wield that power wisely in order to avoid losing players).

That's all in my 3e DMG.

What the DM says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the players go too.

The tables provide a baseline players can work with to build their character to be able to do particular things if it matters to the player. The tables are a facilitator for the DM so he doesn't have to think up a number every time a player wants to do something. When a situation arises a table does not explicitly address the DM has a reference point to pick a number fairly.


To Pex: Have you ever tried asking a GM for some examples? Like pick some things your character is likely to do and ask for DCs for them? I'm not saying that makes the problem disappear but it could help.

By the way I feel D&D has always kind of left its skill system kind of underdeveloped. So I can believe an attempt at rules light(er) D&D made them a bit too rules light.

This harkens to another pet peeve I have in regards to 5E about vague rules in general. I don't want to have to ask every DM I play with what rules are we playing with this time. The rules shouldn't change just because the DM does - the DM's personal revealed at session 0 house rules accepted. The DC to climb a tree or wall would be one of those rules. A DM being consistent within his own game hasn't been a problem. If the DM is a jerk I'll quit. I've done that. The problem is playing with different DMs in different campaigns but none of the DMs are jerks still results in playing with different rules. It's a bother to me my warlock was Tarzan but my monk was George of the Jungle because the DMs had different opinions on how hard it is to climb a tree.


This does not sound so bad as long as you don't over do it. But after a couple levels you will get to magic walls, ans not all magic walls have an easy visual clue.



But what good does this small list even do? It lists some common DC's for some common things relating to walls, but it is in no way the final say on every wall in the game. The rules have a lot more to say about walls.

And this might be the big thing: the game should scale up as the characters gain levels. At like 12th your character won't be climbing a 'loose rock wall', it will be something more level appropriate. And that takes you right back to the "DC could be anything".

The tables provide a baseline players can work with to build their character to be able to do particular things if it matters to the player. The tables are a facilitator for the DM so he doesn't have to think up a number every time a player wants to do something. When a situation arises a table does not explicitly address the DM has a reference point to pick a number fairly.

Jay R
2020-05-04, 10:52 PM
I’ve seen things that caused bad gaming experiences, but none of them were as meaningless as a wall.

So I have to ask: after all this talk about it being a problem, has anybody ever had an actually bad gaming experience because they expected a DC 15 wall and it turned out to be DC 25?

And if so, was that bad experience because the DM gave the wall a false high DC, or because you had a false low opinion of the wall’s difficulty?

And how can there possibly be an answer to the second question about a wall that does not, in fact, exist?

Telok
2020-05-05, 01:11 AM
I’ve seen things that caused bad gaming experiences, but none of them were as meaningless as a wall.

So I have to ask: after all this talk about it being a problem, has anybody ever had an actually bad gaming experience because they expected a DC 15 wall and it turned out to be DC 25?

And if so, was that bad experience because the DM gave the wall a false high DC, or because you had a false low opinion of the wall’s difficulty?

And how can there possibly be an answer to the second question about a wall that does not, in fact, exist?

Well there was the time that it took 3 sessions to discover that the sun didn't move. It was a homemade setting, obviously, featuring an infinite sea, large island chains, and the sun never rose or set. There was also no written game/setting document so everything was in the head of the DM and communicated differently to different plauers at different times. When I came up with a decent plan that involved waiting until nightfall for something stealthy half the table was "heck yeah" and the other half was "wtf dude". It took us an hour to get everyone on the same page about the setting and assumptions.

Ya want jankey DCs that pissed people off though, we played Out of the Abyss. There was a climb check for a 5' high natural rock ledge at dc 11, the thief acrobat character failed that three times just trying to get somewhere for a clear bow shot and again after combat ended. Then, much later, a beholder lair featured a 100' vertical shaft carved and smoothed by magic as a defensive feature that was dc 10 to climb the whole thing but you only rolled during combat. Bad experience.

Pex
2020-05-05, 01:25 AM
I’ve seen things that caused bad gaming experiences, but none of them were as meaningless as a wall.

So I have to ask: after all this talk about it being a problem, has anybody ever had an actually bad gaming experience because they expected a DC 15 wall and it turned out to be DC 25?

And if so, was that bad experience because the DM gave the wall a false high DC, or because you had a false low opinion of the wall’s difficulty?

And how can there possibly be an answer to the second question about a wall that does not, in fact, exist?

Raises hand. I wanted to climb a tree to hide from oncoming hostiles. I had to roll Athletics DC 20 with 10 ST and no proficiency. Don't remember what I rolled, but I know it was not a 20. Different campaign. Granted I had to take off my armor for swimming, but the party wanted to swim across a moat, climb a small hill of rocks to reach an empty Keep, climb the wall to get to a low window, and go inside before approaching hostiles could see us. I have 10 ST and no proficiency in Athletics. The number of checks the party needed to make: 0. We got into the Keep because we wanted to.

EggKookoo
2020-05-05, 05:23 AM
I see a lot of conflation between "the DC was unexpected" and "why did I have to roll at all?" These are two different issues. I certainly agree the rules could be stronger in emphasizing when a roll is called for and when the DM should just be describing the effects.

Saint-Just
2020-05-05, 06:21 AM
I see a lot of conflation between "the DC was unexpected" and "why did I have to roll at all?" These are two different issues. I certainly agree the rules could be stronger in emphasizing when a roll is called for and when the DM should just be describing the effects.

You say "unexpected" as if you expect players to completely ignore RL common sense about tasks which are possible IRL. Consistency is not 100% sufficient. Consistently giving sheer cliffs DC 10 (and everything else less than DC 10) may lead to the players expecting DC 10 walls, but it does not make it any less nonsensical.

EggKookoo
2020-05-05, 07:22 AM
You say "unexpected" as if you expect players to completely ignore RL common sense about tasks which are possible IRL.

I meant it literally. As in, a player is presented with a task and expects one DC, and the DM uses another. They could be wildly different, or they could be one off from each other.

You know, it's possible the DM is the one who has a strong grasp of RL difficulties and it's the players who want unrealistic DCs. And don't be fooled by the DC chart in 3e. If those numbers correlate to realism in any way, it's coincidence. They're set for gameplay balance reasons, or at most to create the illusion of verisimilitude ("Gee, different wall types have different degrees of challenge to climb -- how immersive!").


Consistency is not 100% sufficient. Consistently giving sheer cliffs DC 10 (and everything else less than DC 10) may lead to the players expecting DC 10 walls, but it does not make it any less nonsensical.

Sounds like DC 10 sheer cliffs (and everything else less than 10) just means you have some kind of superhuman feel going for your game. It's not nonsensical, especially if playing in a game like that is a deliberate decision on the part of the players and DM. I'm not a huge fan of D&D-as-superhero game, but lots of people are.

Most of these DC issues are easily solved with some session 0 talk about game expectations. Sure, there will be some elements missed during that discussion, but if you set the general tone and feel of the game up front, it's easy to patch the rest as you go. If you agree that the game should have a certain level of "realism," then when the DM sets a DC that doesn't jive with that, the players can sensibly ask "Is this DC in alignment with what we originally talked about?" It's far less confrontational than "I have a published list of DCs and you should feel bad for not using them."

ExLibrisMortis
2020-05-05, 08:07 AM
And don't be fooled by the DC chart in 3e. If those numbers correlate to realism in any way, it's coincidence.
Which is still better than what 5e provides.

It seems that a lot of your arguments in support of 5e come down to "3e isn't perfect either". Yes, the 3e skill system isn't as robust or elaborate as some, and people have pointed that out for a long time, especially when it comes to social skills. That still doesn't mean that 5e is in any way good or even better than 3e--it isn't. And, given that the 3e system wasn't that good to begin with, it's strange that 5e made no effort to improve. The designers simply gave it up as a bad job, and decided to spend minimal developer (and player!) time on skills. In a way, that does away with a problem with 3e skills--the new system is less fiddly--but it's not very constructive, since the new system still does not allow for complex checks or outcomes, and arguably puts mundane skill-users even further behind magic-users, which are both common complaints about the 3e system.

(By "complex check" I mean something like a full attack with Trip, where a series of rolls form one "move" that produces a (complex) outcome. By "complex outcome" I mean results like "you fail, but..." and "you succeed, but..." that--as I understand--are common in dice pool systems.)

EggKookoo
2020-05-05, 09:28 AM
Which is still better than what 5e provides.

Debatable. As a DM who is comfortable winging DCs, I much prefer being allowed to do that without the rules prodding the players to second guess my choices. I don't object to a player saying "that DC doesn't feel right, based on my 1) real-world understanding of the task or 2) an intuitive gut-feeling about what it should be." I object to a player saying "I don't like the DC you picked because the rulebook has a suggested DC that's different." If 5e had a DC list like 3e, I'd be well aware of it. If I'm deviating from it, I'm doing so for a reason. Either I'm trying to signify this task is different somehow, or I don't agree with the suggested DC.

If having a preset list of DCs was important to me, I'd compile my own.


It seems that a lot of your arguments in support of 5e come down to "3e isn't perfect either".

I'm responding to statements that 5e would do better to have a DC list like 3e does. Some folks have presented it exactly as that. I'm trying to point out why 3e's list wasn't all it's cracked up to be.


Yes, the 3e skill system isn't as robust or elaborate as some, and people have pointed that out for a long time, especially when it comes to social skills. That still doesn't mean that 5e is in any way good or even better than 3e--it isn't.

"Better" is a subjective judgment call. For my DMing style, 5e is hands-down better. For Pex's playstyle (for example), it's not.


And, given that the 3e system wasn't that good to begin with, it's strange that 5e made no effort to improve. The designers simply gave it up as a bad job, and decided to spend minimal developer (and player!) time on skills. In a way, that does away with a problem with 3e skills--the new system is less fiddly--but it's not very constructive, since the new system still does not allow for complex checks or outcomes, and arguably puts mundane skill-users even further behind magic-users, which are both common complaints about the 3e system.

I believe the 5e devs considered leaving out excessive mechanical detail to be an improvement. So while I think you can say that was a bad decision, I don't think it's a case of them making no effort to improve.


(By "complex check" I mean something like a full attack with Trip, where a series of rolls form one "move" that produces a (complex) outcome. By "complex outcome" I mean results like "you fail, but..." and "you succeed, but..." that--as I understand--are common in dice pool systems.)

I'm glad D&D doesn't have partial successes or failures baked into the system. I still apply them when they feel appropriate, if possible, based on how closely the failed roll got to the DC. But only in cases where success itself is kind of fuzzy (persuasion checks are a good example) and there's not a followup "degree of success" mechanic, such as the damage roll that follows the attack roll.

But as with skill DCs, I'm happy to be free to apply these as needed. If I wanted a locked-down list of such, I'd make my own. I'm not interested in telling another DM that they must use my list, and I definitely don't want them telling me I need to use theirs.

kyoryu
2020-05-05, 09:54 AM
Debatable. As a DM who is comfortable winging DCs, I much prefer being allowed to do that without the rules prodding the players to second guess my choices. I don't object to a player saying "that DC doesn't feel right, based on my 1) real-world understanding of the task or 2) an intuitive gut-feeling about what it should be." I object to a player saying "I don't like the DC you picked because the rulebook has a suggested DC that's different." If 5e had a DC list like 3e, I'd be well aware of it. If I'm deviating from it, I'm doing so for a reason. Either I'm trying to signify this task is different somehow, or I don't agree with the suggested DC.

Pretty much this.

Add to that the time necessary to look up the DC chart, all the modifiers, etc.

And as I've said before, if I want the wall to be DC 20? It'll be DC 20. I'll figure out what modifiers I need to have in place for it to be a DC 20 wall. So why jump through the hoops?

If you like the illusion of consistency that said charts provide? Great. It literally has no value to me - probably negative value. The costs (as above) outweigh the non-existent benefits.

It's not that those on the "5e is fine" side don't understand your points. I can see where that would be pretty necessary if you had certain things you valued. I just don't value those things.

(Note that I play more Fate than anything, and that's a game where even what a given skill rating means is fairly arbitrary between campaigns, so a set list of difficulties would be literally impossible)



"Better" is a subjective judgment call. For my DMing style, 5e is hands-down better. For Pex's playstyle (for example), it's not.

I believe the 5e devs considered leaving out excessive mechanical detail to be an improvement. So while I think you can say that was a bad decision, I don't think it's a case of them making no effort to improve.

Exactly this. The page 174 chart is all I want. My game experience is in no way enhanced by a list of examples and modifiers. I get that it is for some people, because they value and prioritize things differently in their gaming. That's great! I accept that 5e is worse for them in that regard. People like different things and that's why we have different games. 3.x, for instance, is pretty much my anti-game. And the reasons it's my anti-game are pretty much all the reasons why its fans love it. As I like to say, "it does a bunch of things very well that I have no interest in".

5e can be a bad game for some people, like Pex. That doesn't mean it's an objectively bad game. It's just a bad game for them.

Also, I could probably make a reasonable argument that a game like 3e, where skill ratings vary SO MUCH, is in more need of calibration points than something like 5e (or Fate), which have much more constrained skill levels.

Pex
2020-05-05, 10:57 AM
I see a lot of conflation between "the DC was unexpected" and "why did I have to roll at all?" These are two different issues. I certainly agree the rules could be stronger in emphasizing when a roll is called for and when the DM should just be describing the effects.

If there were DC tables to provide examples then there wouldn't be a discrepancy between what a player expects and the DM proscribes.

EggKookoo
2020-05-05, 11:06 AM
If there were DC tables to provide examples then there wouldn't be a discrepancy between what a player expects and the DM proscribes.

I can't imagine you really believe that.

kyoryu
2020-05-05, 11:15 AM
If there were DC tables to provide examples then there wouldn't be a discrepancy between what a player expects and the DM proscribes.

Many people don't care.

GM: "There's a stone wall here. Difficulty to climb it is 15."
Player: "Oh, I assumed it would be a 10, but I guess it's a harder wall to climb."

- or -

Player: "I've climbed walls like that before, and you said they were 10."
GM: "Yeah, you're right" or "This one's a bit tougher to climb for <reasons>"

That's how a lot of people play, and that interaction is usually a no-op (the first one), or very quick.

I get that it's an issue for you, and am not arguing that. But it's not an objective flaw of the system.

I also dispute that it prevents issues. In my experience, people that can't do one of the things above will invariably argue about something. Again, that doesn't mean that you can't have a preference for more concrete touchstones for DCs. But I dispute that it's a good way to avoid table arguments. I'm not sure it doesn't make them worse... if I know it's a GM call, then I know it's just subjective. If there's a table of modifiers and difficulties, then it creates more room for arguing what does/does not apply, what category it falls into, etc.

Zarrgon
2020-05-05, 11:19 AM
The tables provide a baseline players can work with to build their character to be able to do particular things if it matters to the player. The tables are a facilitator for the DM so he doesn't have to think up a number every time a player wants to do something. When a situation arises a table does not explicitly address the DM has a reference point to pick a number fairly.

Except what is the point of a baseline only for the lowest, weakest, and most common of something like a wall, when you full well know nearly every wall you will encounter after extremely low game levels will be higher then that? Once you leave the low level game, that baseline table is gone. It not that such walls don't exist anymore, it is simply more that the characters won't encounter them during an adventure.

Now, granted this is more of a D&D rule problem. The Climb skill only lists walls up to DC 25, so that takes the game up to level five or so. So what about 6th level and above? The DMG adds to the list, but not over 25. Though splatbooks and Epic stuff(that is in the SRD) have ones over 25. Though, oddly, the "Epic" ones are things like Wall of Force, that you will encounter way, way, way, way before you get to epic level.

The "baseline" you're talking about would be a lot more DC 10 to 50, to cover all levels of the game. But D&D does not give you that.




The problem is playing with different DMs in different campaigns but none of the DMs are jerks still results in playing with different rules. It's a bother to me my warlock was Tarzan but my monk was George of the Jungle because the DMs had different opinions on how hard it is to climb a tree.

This has been true from day one of D&D. Even more so for 0E, 1E and 2E. But again, even if you had 1,000 pages of just climb rules, any DM can just toss them out anyway.

Really the ONLY way to do it is to feel out a DM and decide if their game is for you, and that is true for many parts of the game, not just skill checks.



The tables provide a baseline players can work with to build their character to be able to do particular things if it matters to the player. The tables are a facilitator for the DM so he doesn't have to think up a number every time a player wants to do something. When a situation arises a table does not explicitly address the DM has a reference point to pick a number fairly.

This imagined "baseline" is only for a very flat, unimaginative game style. Now not that this is in anyway a bad or wrong game style, but it is objectively unimaginative. And, I will grant you that it is exactly the same style that most published official D&D things. Where in a 20th level adventure the demon horde builds defensive earthwork walls with a DC 10. Or the Dark Lords castle has ''slippery" walls for a big DC of, wow, 25.

Now, I'd guess your your posts that you like this sort of game. The type of game that has just ''normal" stone walls up to DC 25 from game levels 1-20. You would see no problem with an adventure at 20th level and the wall of the lich lords castle of undeath is a Superior Masonry Walls of DC 25.

Now, I'm a whole other game sort of style: the ultra powerful beyond imagination style. So in an adventure at 20th level and the wall of the lich lords castle of undeath is a unliving necromatic poisonous spiked smoking livingbane cursed(greater) spell storing(summon grave ooze) wall. And, that is "just" the walls. And you will never guess the DC of such a wall, assuming a character would want to even try climbing that (I like the grave ooze that appears attacks and grapples and jumps off the wall with it's victim myself).



Raises hand. I wanted to climb a tree to hide from oncoming hostiles. I had to roll Athletics DC 20 with 10 ST and no proficiency. Don't remember what I rolled, but I know it was not a 20. Different campaign. Granted I had to take off my armor for swimming, but the party wanted to swim across a moat, climb a small hill of rocks to reach an empty Keep, climb the wall to get to a low window, and go inside before approaching hostiles could see us. I have 10 ST and no proficiency in Athletics. The number of checks the party needed to make: 0. We got into the Keep because we wanted to.

This describes the different play styles of DMs. All the rules in the world won't change this.


Most of these DC issues are easily solved with some session 0 talk about game expectations.

This is very true.


I'm responding to statements that 5e would do better to have a DC list like 3e does. Some folks have presented it exactly as that. I'm trying to point out why 3e's list wasn't all it's cracked up to be.


Me too. At best the 3x baseline list is an illusion. You can read it and think you know all about whatever, but in reality you have not even scratched the surface. And that only goes times, a hundred, in my game where a poor player of a higher level character will get all shocked at the DC for climbing a wall made of frozen time.

One of the better things 5E did was toss out the micro management of 3X and put things back into the DMs hands. A lot more like pre 3X, where the DM just decided everything.


If there were DC tables to provide examples then there wouldn't be a discrepancy between what a player expects and the DM proscribes.

This would be true, but would also be impossible. Simply put the average D&D creator, especially now a days, can't handle anything out side of plain and simple. Sure they could set DC's for stone walls, bet that would be a "day of hard work for them". But ask them "hey what would be the climb DC for a wall made out of frozen time, and they will likely have a mental breakdown. Like when they listed strange or unique magical effects under Spellcraft at DC 30 or higher. Wow thanks for the help there: strange or unique magical effects DC 30 or higher. They might as well just put a picture where that text was.....

kyoryu
2020-05-05, 11:31 AM
One of the better things 5E did was toss out the micro management of 3X and put things back into the DMs hands. A lot more like pre 3X, where the DM just decided everything.


I agree with you, but I think it's important to keep in mind that a number of players (and I suspect Pex is in this category) consider GM judgement to be inherently questionable and a suboptimal fallback that should be used as infrequently as possible.

EggKookoo
2020-05-05, 11:54 AM
I agree with you, but I think it's important to keep in mind that a number of players (and I suspect Pex is in this category) consider GM judgement to be inherently questionable and a suboptimal fallback that should be used as infrequently as possible.

Not without justification, of course. A jerk player is a problem that is more easily solved than a jerk DM. And when you have a jerk DM who also positions himself as the be-all end-all rules-deity, well, that's not going to be a fun campaign. So I get that idea. I've been on the other side, with "secret player meetings" where we've had to agree to team up against a jerk DM (and ultimately oust him at the cost of his friendship with some players).

Pex, have you ever DMed? Would you ever consider it?

Telok
2020-05-05, 12:01 PM
Debatable. As a DM who is comfortable winging DCs, I much prefer being allowed to do that without the rules prodding the players to second guess my choices.

As a DM I'm fine with it too. As a player with inexperienced DMs it's not fine. I was told that climbing a rope, out of combat, was dc 10 because the DM was being nice. Really the DM had a bad back and even climbing modern ladders was hard for him.

That game stopped for a 15 minute argument. Eventually the DM quit because it was too hard to run the game. Yup, 5e was too hard to run outside of combat, for him. Eventually I stopped plaing with inexperienced DMs because these sorts of things kept happening.

The 5e books don't even have examples of how to use the proficency system. This is basically a reversion to the AD&D proficency system. We have 30+ years of better ways to do this stuff.

prabe
2020-05-05, 12:26 PM
I agree with you, but I think it's important to keep in mind that a number of players (and I suspect Pex is in this category) consider GM judgement to be inherently questionable and a suboptimal fallback that should be used as infrequently as possible.

I think the primary difference is between people who've been shaped by run-ins with jerk players, and people who've been shaped by run-ins with jerk GMs. I count myself fortunate that I don't have deep scars either way.

kyoryu
2020-05-05, 12:26 PM
Not without justification, of course. A jerk player is a problem that is more easily solved than a jerk DM. And when you have a jerk DM who also positions himself as the be-all end-all rules-deity, well, that's not going to be a fun campaign. So I get that idea. I've been on the other side, with "secret player meetings" where we've had to agree to team up against a jerk DM (and ultimately oust him at the cost of his friendship with some players).

Sure. It can absolutely happen. I just prefer to deal with that by not playing with those people.

My experience is that jerks are gonna jerk. The idea that this can be controlled with rules has never born fruit for me.


I think the primary difference is between people who've been shaped by run-ins with jerk players, and people who've been shaped by run-ins with jerk GMs. I count myself fortunate that I don't have deep scars either way.

Maybe? My experience is that, either side of the screen, a jerk is gonna be a jerk, and rules won't stop that. It might just change how they're being jerks, but that's about it.

Certainly within any type of game that has the amount of inherent leeway as an RPG. You might be able to do a fun game of something like Descent with them, but I'd question that.

ExLibrisMortis
2020-05-05, 12:46 PM
As a DM who is comfortable winging DCs, I much prefer being allowed to do that without the rules prodding the players to second guess my choices.
That's a very... dictatorial approach to DMing. I would not want to play with a DM like that. It also begs the question why you need rules at all. After all, you are "a DM who is comfortable winging DCs", so wouldn't you be better off not using the DMG/MM rules? You could wing every number, and not be limited by the rules at all.

In your view, you're the only one who's sets DCs and decides outcomes, so there's no need for rules to provide consistency between people. And from that perspective, rules that would provide structure and consistency are merely limiting. However, in my view, all players--and that includes the DM--are in this game and this setting together, and the rules aren't just providing tools for the DM, they provide a framework that allows different players' contributions to fit together. The game and the world/setting should be open to everyone to tinker with.

SunderedWorldDM
2020-05-05, 12:57 PM
That's a very... dictatorial approach to DMing. I would not want to play with a DM like that. It also begs the question why you need rules at all. After all, you are "a DM who is comfortable winging DCs", so wouldn't you be better off not using the DMG/MM rules? You could wing every number, and not be limited by the rules at all.

In your view, you're the only one who's sets DCs and decides outcomes, so there's no need for rules to provide consistency between people. And from that perspective, rules that would provide structure and consistency are merely limiting. However, in my view, all players--and that includes the DM--are in this game and this setting together, and the rules aren't just providing tools for the DM, they provide a framework that allows different players' contributions to fit together. The game and the world/setting should be open to everyone to tinker with.
I'm curious, as a person who DMs in this style, as to what the grievance is, exactly. The DM's job is to interpret player intent into mechanical effect, and a DM who can do that with confidence and speed should be better, right? Since every table is varied anyways, then mechanical variance between tables can be explained in the same way encounter variance is explained: every DM has their own philosophies, guidelines and intuitions. If the player's actions are being resolved and the game is moving forward, what's the matter if this DM has a DC 15 wall where another one would give the wall DC 20?

prabe
2020-05-05, 01:25 PM
My experience is that, either side of the screen, a jerk is gonna be a jerk, and rules won't stop that. It might just change how they're being jerks, but that's about it.

Certainly within any type of game that has the amount of inherent leeway as an RPG. You might be able to do a fun game of something like Descent with them, but I'd question that.

I don't disagree. I'm thinking of which one you encountered first, though, or maybe which experience was worse, but the dichotomy breaks down if you were a player and another player was the first jerk you gamed with.

And based on collaborative board games like Arkham Horror, a jerk is a jerk and no fun to game with, even then.

Unavenger
2020-05-05, 01:29 PM
I'm curious, as a person who DMs in this style, as to what the grievance is, exactly. The DM's job is to interpret player intent into mechanical effect, and a DM who can do that with confidence and speed should be better, right? Since every table is varied anyways, then mechanical variance between tables can be explained in the same way encounter variance is explained: every DM has their own philosophies, guidelines and intuitions. If the player's actions are being resolved and the game is moving forward, what's the matter if this DM has a DC 15 wall where another one would give the wall DC 20?

Because it means training your climbing, before you even start the game, may or may not be pointless and you don't know which.

EggKookoo
2020-05-05, 01:34 PM
That's a very... dictatorial approach to DMing. I would not want to play with a DM like that. It also begs the question why you need rules at all. After all, you are "a DM who is comfortable winging DCs", so wouldn't you be better off not using the DMG/MM rules? You could wing every number, and not be limited by the rules at all.

In your view, you're the only one who's sets DCs and decides outcomes, so there's no need for rules to provide consistency between people. And from that perspective, rules that would provide structure and consistency are merely limiting. However, in my view, all players--and that includes the DM--are in this game and this setting together, and the rules aren't just providing tools for the DM, they provide a framework that allows different players' contributions to fit together. The game and the world/setting should be open to everyone to tinker with.

So is this an example of reductio ad absurdum?

It's not dictatorial. Setting DCs is the DM's job. Just like deciding PC actions is the player's job. The DM should never infringe on player agency (aside from in-fiction effects like charms and whatnot). I mean, as a player, if you said "I do the thing," and as the DM I said "no, I think you go do the other thing because I'm more prepared for that," that would be bad, right? I would hate that if I were playing as a player, and I certainly never do that as a DM.

Some elements of the game are firmly in the player's domain, others are in the DM's. More things (by far) are in the DM's than the player's, because the DM has to "play" the entire world outside of the PC. One thing that's in the DM's domain is setting things like DCs for various checks and saves. In some cases, the DM has very clear rules for that. A spell's saving throw DC, for example, is provided by a formula. In 3e, monster attack abilities are defined by a formula. In 5e, passive scores (which can function as DCs) are set by a formula. Almost every other DC, though, is not. The example DCs in the 3e DMG are not rules. They're examples, meant to provide something to use when the DM is unable or unwilling to invent one.

I'm not asserting or paraphrasing this. It's literally in the DMG. Go find a copy. In particular, check out "Difficulty Classes" on page 94 (I have the 3e DMG, not sure if it moved to a different page in 3.5).

About the whole "working together" thing, yes, of course. We're all working together. But that doesn't relieve the DM of his responsibilities. I still have to curate the gameplay experience, ideally toward maximum enjoyment on the part of the players. I don't tell them all the plot points up front, for example, because they have more fun working things out for themselves. They have a sense of victory when they figure out what's "really" going on with a mystery. Or when they win a fight through luck, daring decisions, and smart tactics. I could throw underpowered monsters at them so that they "win," but they'll eventually get just as dissatisfied with that as they would if I made things too hard all the time. It's a balancing act.

Setting DCs is just one more example of this. Just like working out what the right CR range is for my players. If they have objections, I listen, of course. But in the end, if I made a decision about a DC or any other element in the game (as long as it doesn't interfere with their agency), I probably made it for a reason. I'm not doing it to tweak anyone's broken daddy issues or to trigger anyone's preexisting authority-figure trauma. I just have a job to do.

Imbalance
2020-05-05, 01:47 PM
Because it means training your climbing, before you even start the game, may or may not be pointless and you don't know which.

Why would it be pointless? If you've trained a specific skill, you're likely better at it than anyone else in the party and subsequently have the best odds of success whether the DC is concrete or not. It's still up to a dice roll plus bonus no matter what the DC, which is why those who are unskilled can still have a chance to overcome the same obstacle. Just like the DC can be consistently low and the skilled party member can still fail repeatedly with bad rolls. Is the training pointless then? How about when the DC is raised so that everyone with no skill and statistically average rolls fails, but the skill bonus is just enough to beat the statistical results? Does that feel as pointless, given the equal odds, if the dice result is below average for the skilled character?

prabe
2020-05-05, 01:50 PM
Because it means training your climbing, before you even start the game, may or may not be pointless and you don't know which.

Aren't you taking that chance anyway, since you don't know how often you'll be needing to climb in a given game? At least in 5E it's Athletics, which has multiple uses.

kyoryu
2020-05-05, 02:32 PM
That's a very... dictatorial approach to DMing. I would not want to play with a DM like that. It also begs the question why you need rules at all. After all, you are "a DM who is comfortable winging DCs", so wouldn't you be better off not using the DMG/MM rules? You could wing every number, and not be limited by the rules at all.

I think you're reading this in an extreme way. I'm pretty sure he's open to healthy discussion, rather than arguing

Healthy:
GM: "Okay, the DC for the wall is 15"
Player: (presumign they don't say okay) "Hey, you described this wall as being super craggy, and last one of those was DC10. Don't you think that's more appropriate?"

GM: "Yeah, you're right"
-or-
GM: "No, this one's a bit tougher, it's really 15."
Player: "Cool."

Arguing:
GM: "Okay, the DC for the wall is 15."
Player: "No, it's 10. It says in the book that the DC for rough stone is 10."
GM: "Yeah, but it's crumbling."
Player: "That's not a rule. It's 10, and if you don't make it 10, you're wrong."


On the other hand, what you're concerned about is:
GM: "Okay, the DC for the wall is 20"
Player: "Hey, you described it as being really easy to climb. That seems a bit high. Last time we had a similar wall it was 10."
GM: "Too bad. Don't argue with me. It's 20. Deal with it or it'll be 25."

I don't think anybody has an issue with the "healthy" variants, either of them. I don't think rules prevent the jerk GM example in any effective way, and I think they enable the jerk player.


Because it means training your climbing, before you even start the game, may or may not be pointless and you don't know which.

I submit that, to a great extent, this is a D&D 3.x-centric problem where the character build game is very deep and there's a huge range of skill levels you can buy with varying degrees of investment. As a contrast, I play Fate. In Fate, your skills are between 0 and +4, and you get a certain amount of them at each level. The GM knows explicitly what levels are achievable, as there's really no variation beyond that level. Similar in D&D5, you're either trained, or not. There's not a lot of variation for how much investment you make in a skill.

Unavenger
2020-05-05, 02:38 PM
Why would it be pointless? If you've trained a specific skill, you're likely better at it than anyone else in the party and subsequently have the best odds of success whether the DC is concrete or not. It's still up to a dice roll plus bonus no matter what the DC, which is why those who are unskilled can still have a chance to overcome the same obstacle. Just like the DC can be consistently low and the skilled party member can still fail repeatedly with bad rolls. Is the training pointless then? How about when the DC is raised so that everyone with no skill and statistically average rolls fails, but the skill bonus is just enough to beat the statistical results? Does that feel as pointless, given the equal odds, if the dice result is below average for the skilled character?

If all walls are at least hard enough to make climbing them not the best possible action irrespective of whether you're trained or not, then it becomes pointless to train, and if all walls are automatically climbable with no roll, it makes it also pointless to train.


Aren't you taking that chance anyway, since you don't know how often you'll be needing to climb in a given game? At least in 5E it's Athletics, which has multiple uses.

You should have no shortage of things to climb if you really want to climb, in most games. And for some inexplicable reason, how many walls there are to climb varying from session to session doesn't bother me as much as the difficulty of two identical walls varying from session to session.


I submit that, to a great extent, this is a D&D 3.x-centric problem where the character build game is very deep and there's a huge range of skill levels you can buy with varying degrees of investment. As a contrast, I play Fate. In Fate, your skills are between 0 and +4, and you get a certain amount of them at each level. The GM knows explicitly what levels are achievable, as there's really no variation beyond that level. Similar in D&D5, you're either trained, or not. There's not a lot of variation for how much investment you make in a skill.

It's not a problem in 3.5 at all, but it's not because of the ability to train something partially. The problem is not knowing whether or not your training will actually matter.

kyoryu
2020-05-05, 02:47 PM
If all walls are at least hard enough to make climbing them not the best possible action irrespective of whether you're trained or not, then it becomes pointless to train, and if all walls are automatically climbable with no roll, it makes it also pointless to train.

You should have no shortage of things to climb if you really want to climb, in most games. And for some inexplicable reason, how many walls there are to climb varying from session to session doesn't bother me as much as the difficulty of two identical walls varying from session to session.

It's not a problem in 3.5 at all, but it's not because of the ability to train something partially. The problem is not knowing whether or not your training will actually matter.

So what you seem to want is:

1) Walls to climb every session. Preferably a similar number of them
2) Walls that are the perfect difficulty to highlight your abilities while neither being so hard you cannot climb them, nor so easy others can.
3) Difficulties to be precisely what you expect them to be based on whatever description is given

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-05, 03:57 PM
If all walls are at least hard enough to make climbing them not the best possible action irrespective of whether you're trained or not, then it becomes pointless to train, and if all walls are automatically climbable with no roll, it makes it also pointless to train.



That's a very interesting choice of words, because in my mind, a combination of rules and culture that encourages the player to deliberately choose to do what is not the "best possible action" sounds great to me.

As an extension of that in the culture discussion, outside of forums like this i think there has been a move away from the idea that every move the player makes has to be the "best possible action", at least compared to 3.5 or 4e, which is obviously great for people like me.

Pex
2020-05-05, 04:02 PM
Pex, have you ever DMed? Would you ever consider it?

Ever since 2E. I've certainly made my own mistakes but don't do them anymore. I used to be heavy into puzzles for players to solve. One can still come up, but it's a more logical place to exist and rare. I also once created a one shot adventure purposely designed not to have any combat. It wasn't a disaster, but I knew not to make that mistake again. I'm glad I don't remember what it was.

DMing 5E now. First time I DMed 5E I was getting exhausted trying to think up numbers for the various skill checks. By the end of the session every skill check DC was player roll high - success, player roll low - fail, player roll in the middle - eh maybe, what's the first thought I think of now that I'm bothering. Now many are DC Yes just because I don't want to think of a number, but I will think 10, 15, or 20 if it's something I specifically want a player to roll.

My DMing style is naturally trying not to be everything I hated about DM styles when I'm a player. I have killed PCs, but I'm not trying to. My game style is definitely light hearted. For example, one of my adventures is Brady Bunch of the Corn. It's exactly what it sounds like. They're all bards commanded by evil cleric Oliver. There's a preliminary fight before they encounter the children. In the cornfield the party fights a scarecrow, a helmed horror, and a dire lion (using dire tiger statistics). Hmm. I have Oliver as a Nature Cleric. I might try him as a Druid next time.

Zarrgon
2020-05-05, 04:08 PM
I agree with you, but I think it's important to keep in mind that a number of players (and I suspect Pex is in this category) consider GM judgement to be inherently questionable and a suboptimal fallback that should be used as infrequently as possible.

Yea, but to me this seems to be asking a bit too much. I would be great if every DM was perfect and we all lived in a prefect world...but that is not going to happen. There is no way to "rule this problem away" as a DM will always be a person. So until the invent the Super-intelligent Artificial Intelligence DM(Aka SkyDM), you are stuck with people. So the best you can do is simply pick a DM that you at least mostly agree with and like.


That's a very... dictatorial approach to DMing. I would not want to play with a DM like that. It also begs the question why you need rules at all. After all, you are "a DM who is comfortable winging DCs", so wouldn't you be better off not using the DMG/MM rules? You could wing every number, and not be limited by the rules at all.

Hope it's not too much of a shock or anything, but I'd guess at least half of all RPGs ever played have been played the above way.



In your view, you're the only one who's sets DCs and decides outcomes, so there's no need for rules to provide consistency between people. And from that perspective, rules that would provide structure and consistency are merely limiting. However, in my view, all players--and that includes the DM--are in this game and this setting together, and the rules aren't just providing tools for the DM, they provide a framework that allows different players' contributions to fit together. The game and the world/setting should be open to everyone to tinker with.

But, again, all DCs and rules don't matter much as a DM can just make stuff up at will (one of the basic jobs of a DM) and can even make up stuff that will pass the average hostile players litmus test. If the DM wants a DC to be X, they can just use the rules to make it X. It's that simple. The hostile player will still complain, even if the DM shows the player what they did to get the DC of X. Because, after all, then the hostile player will just shift to complaining about what, why and how the DM used the rules....plus the oh so classic "I can't believe you used something from THAT source".

And again where do you get this whole ''player consistency" thing? No two DCs (or ACs or HPs, etc) are going to be consistency the same for everything in the game. The game simply does not work like that. Even just five kobold sorcerers will have five different spell save DCs depending on a lot of things about each like level, ability scores and feats just to name a few. So two kobolds cast the exact same spell, but one has a DC of 12 and one has a DC of 15, so what you complain that the "game is not contestant!?"



GM: "No, this one's a bit tougher, it's really 15."
Player: "Cool."
.

It's this right here. And after very low level of game play, the reason why a DC is X is not always visually obvious. So the player can't just know why the DC is X, unless they want to do the "discover the DC minigame" if they feel they really "must" know.

Pex
2020-05-05, 04:23 PM
I'm curious, as a person who DMs in this style, as to what the grievance is, exactly. The DM's job is to interpret player intent into mechanical effect, and a DM who can do that with confidence and speed should be better, right? Since every table is varied anyways, then mechanical variance between tables can be explained in the same way encounter variance is explained: every DM has their own philosophies, guidelines and intuitions. If the player's actions are being resolved and the game is moving forward, what's the matter if this DM has a DC 15 wall where another one would give the wall DC 20?

It matters that the choices I make for my character don't matter. In one game I'm warlock Tarzan (DC yes to climb) and another I'm monk George of the Jungle (DC 20 to climb) while both characters have the same 10 strength and lack of proficiency in Athletics. In another campaign I was playing a paladin with 18 ST and proficiency in Athletics. Climb Tree DC was 15. If my paladin was in the warlock game the ST and Proficiency are superfluous. Still need it for combat, yes, but for skills meaningless since I don't roll to take advantage of being so good at it. If my paladin was in the monk game I'm now worse at climbing stuff by virtue of DM fiat. If my warlock or monk was in the paladin game, my warlock is no longer Tarzan and both struggle to climb trees but at least monk now has some hope. My characters' statistics remain the same, but their ability to climb stuff changes depending on who is the DM.

prabe
2020-05-05, 04:23 PM
And after very low level of game play, the reason why a DC is X is not always visually obvious. So the player can't just know why the DC is X, unless they want to do the "discover the DC minigame" if they feel they really "must" know.

OTOH, it's not unreasonable to allow a PC with Proficiency in the skill (Athletics in the case of climbing) to know the DC of a climb. It's also not unreasonable to not allow someone with that Proficiency to know it. It doesn't do anything about helping the player to decide where the Proficiencies go, but it helps the character make rational decisions in the game. Obviously, that's not a universal approach to GMing.

Unavenger
2020-05-05, 04:33 PM
That's a very interesting choice of words, because in my mind, a combination of rules and culture that encourages the player to deliberately choose to do what is not the "best possible action" sounds great to me.

As an extension of that in the culture discussion, outside of forums like this i think there has been a move away from the idea that every move the player makes has to be the "best possible action", at least compared to 3.5 or 4e, which is obviously great for people like me.

Replace with "Not worthwhile" or "Not reliable enough to play into a character concept of your design", then. I say this while tabbed out of Assassin's Creed 2, I really like to know whether my character will actually be able to climb around like Ezio or whether attempting to do so is so unreliable that I may as well not bother before I waste a skill proficiency on it. I also want to know, mind you, whether or not I'll actually have to roll to climb at all, or whether someone with no climb ranks can just freely climb things and actually that athletics proficiency is pointless when it comes to climbing. I don't think that wanting to know whether that character concept is viable before I try to make it is so wrong?

It's like asking someone to make a sorcerer without telling them what their spells do until after they've chosen them and are attempting to cast one. And if you want to houserule a spell, a monster or a weapon to do something different, or not to have a clearly-defined effect at all, then you can... but imagine if fireball did something different with every DM: you wouldn't have a clue whether or not it was a spell you were interested in taking until after you were already using it. That doesn't appeal to me.

I don't mind not being able to be Ezio. I don't mind everyone suddenly being Ezio. But I do mind not having a clue whether or not my character can be Ezio until it's far, far too late.

SunderedWorldDM
2020-05-05, 04:42 PM
It matters that the choices I make for my character don't matter. In one game I'm warlock Tarzan (DC yes to climb) and another I'm monk George of the Jungle (DC 20 to climb) while both characters have the same 10 strength and lack of proficiency in Athletics. In another campaign I was playing a paladin with 18 ST and proficiency in Athletics. Climb Tree DC was 15. If my paladin was in the warlock game the ST and Proficiency are superfluous. Still need it for combat, yes, but for skills meaningless since I don't roll to take advantage of being so good at it. If my paladin was in the monk game I'm now worse at climbing stuff by virtue of DM fiat. If my warlock or monk was in the paladin game, my warlock is no longer Tarzan and both struggle to climb trees but at least monk now has some hope. My characters' statistics remain the same, but their ability to climb stuff changes depending on who is the DM.
First off, I find it funny how everyone is using climbing walls as their example. The locks remain unpicked and the rivers remain unswam (unswum?), I suppose...

Second of all, that's a pretty extreme stance. Athletics covers such a wide range of things that you probably won't get stuck without a use for it? Unless you're making a character that is SPECIFICALLY built to climb trees, but that's so hyperspecific that odds are you've told your DM your plan beforehand or are willing to take that chance. Optimizing towards any skill will usually have enough dividends to make it worthwhile no matter the DC or what your DM rules. It feels to me like you're comparing a very broad skill to something like a language: a language is a choice you make pretty much in the dark that could have anything from 0 consequences to absolutely massive repercussions. The difference here is that languages aren't a really core part of the game, while things like combat builds and skill specializations are. The game, and the assumptions about how to build encounters and adventures, were designed around using these skills. Unless your DM is REALLY off the deep end, you should be able to find a use for them and get a ruling and resolution just like anything else. How that ruling and resolution works very well might be as idiosyncratic as the rest of the DM's job.

EggKookoo
2020-05-05, 04:49 PM
DMing 5E now. First time I DMed 5E I was getting exhausted trying to think up numbers for the various skill checks. By the end of the session every skill check DC was player roll high - success, player roll low - fail, player roll in the middle - eh maybe, what's the first thought I think of now that I'm bothering. Now many are DC Yes just because I don't want to think of a number, but I will think 10, 15, or 20 if it's something I specifically want a player to roll.

Yeah, sounds exactly like my approach. Basically the player rolls low and they know they rolled low; I use that as my cue to say they failed. They rolled high and they're psyched, okay, you get a cookie. It makes it about player vs. dice rather than player vs. DM, which makes us all happier in the long run. I don't do combat that way. It's interesting. Once a fight happens, everyone at the table becomes a strict rule-abiding player. I even did the cardinal sin of fudging an attack roll to try to prevent a near-dead 1st level PC from dying, and the player caught me, and told me not to. Turns out we had briefly forgotten they had gotten their hands on a healing potion, so it turned out okay in the end. But for skill checks, everyone's relaxed and "hey, sure, whatever" about the DCs. Attack rolls bring out the slide rules.

When I first started DMing 5e, I would DC "yes" a lot. I've actually backed off on that now and call for checks more often. I think it's very table-dependent but I'm finding my players want me to call for checks at a certain level of frequency, but not to call for checks for every little thing. This is sort of independent of the idea that the DM should only call for checks when the PC is under stress or something. Even casual things sometimes get checks now. I think I get that. Too much pure narrative turns the players into an audience, even if they're nominally controlling their PCs. A little bit of random uncertainty wakes up those special parts of the brain.


My DMing style is naturally trying not to be everything I hated about DM styles when I'm a player. I have killed PCs, but I'm not trying to. My game style is definitely light hearted. For example, one of my adventures is Brady Bunch of the Corn. It's exactly what it sounds like. They're all bards commanded by evil cleric Oliver. There's a preliminary fight before they encounter the children. In the cornfield the party fights a scarecrow, a helmed horror, and a dire lion (using dire tiger statistics). Hmm. I have Oliver as a Nature Cleric. I might try him as a Druid next time.

That sounds great, and I'd probably have a blast playing at your table. I'm going to put my gang through Wild Sheep Chase when they hit 5th level. Followed probably by a heavily customized trip to see Strahd, just for the whiplash.

ExLibrisMortis
2020-05-05, 05:10 PM
Long reply to quotes from SunderedWorldDM, EggKooKoo, and kyoryu. Probably more than a little off-topic, and possibly a bit too theoretical. Proceed with appropriate care.


I'm curious, as a person who DMs in this style, as to what the grievance is, exactly. The DM's job is to interpret player intent into mechanical effect, and a DM who can do that with confidence and speed should be better, right? Since every table is varied anyways, then mechanical variance between tables can be explained in the same way encounter variance is explained: every DM has their own philosophies, guidelines and intuitions. If the player's actions are being resolved and the game is moving forward, what's the matter if this DM has a DC 15 wall where another one would give the wall DC 20?
Well, first of all, I'd disagree that it's the DM's job to interpret player intent mechanically. In the interest of speed and agency, that's the player's job. The player provides the idea, the appropriate mechanics, the resolution, and the narration. The DM oversees this, calls for checks the player could not see coming, and provides information that the player does not know--information that might translate into a different DC, of course. In addition, players (including DM) can chime in if they feel that the narration and the mechanics are particularly far apart. The DM is the final arbiter in these cases, but it is ultimately the table that decides by which pre-set standards the DM judges.

Let's take the wall as an example. I've asked the DM about the wall, or heard about the wall during a description, so I have a decent idea what the DC is like. I decide I want to Climb (not "climb") the wall, and I roll a Climb check against a DC I submit to the DM and the group for approval (with the understanding that I'm a grown-up player who isn't looking to game the system by lowballing the DC). Depending on the result, I then narrate "my character climbs/fails to climb the wall", inserting character-specific flavour as appropriate. The DM acknowledges this, and intervenes if the wall is unusual, providing a reason to adjust my result. For example, the DM might say "remember, the wall is wet, it's been raining", and I'll adjust the DC as appropriate. Any player might remind me of the same, and participate in the game that way.

The idea here is that it's a lot more efficient to do the narration and resolution inside one's head than in a back-and-forth with the DM, and it allows a lot more detailed flavour, since you're actually narrating your own actions all the time. Of course, it does require some solid standards to rule DCs by, because you don't want mismatched expectations between players (not too much, anyway).

The example of the wall is a bit limiting. Walls form a pretty smooth continuum from "basically a walk uphill" to "basically an ideal plane", and there's not much to them besides that. I want an example of what a robust system can do for you. So, let's take this bit I've done:


It's fun to tinker around with low-level builds. The 3.5 rules, in all their glorious intricacy, often throw up interesting world-building hooks. Tonight, I thought I'd share some blacksmiths I've statted up.


Assumptions
The smiths are a mix of NPCs and PCs at levels 1 and 2, and one third-level legendary smith. They're built using the standard array (13/12/11/10/9/8) and the elite array (15/14/13/12/10/8) for NPCs and PCs respectively.

I've avoided some things that I think would make it too easy, primarily spells above first level (guidance of the avatar, especially) and stacking Aid Another. On the other hand, several smiths are over WBL, and I've used a houserule: Knowledge (architecture and engineering) provides a +2 synergy bonus on Craft (blacksmithing) and becomes a dwarf paragon class skill. It may seem a little silly to add this houserule in an otherwise fairly RAW exposition, but one of the things I like about the 3.5 skill system is the little synergy skill-bump at level 2, and in this case, the houserule helps cement the difference between 1st- and 2nd-level smiths.

Alternate Races
Any dwarf can instead be an earth dwarf, increasing their racial bonus on Craft checks by 2 to +4.

A human with Lesser Dragonmark (Mark of Making) equals a dwarf in all these builds. For the Forge Director, the lack of a Charisma penalty increases the aura’s granted bonus by 1.

Any race with an Intelligence bonus can do almost as well as a dwarf, especially if they have a Director and no racial Charisma penalty.

Artificer's Guild
The Artificer’s Guild is essentially a mercantile guild with Craft (blacksmithing) and Use Magic Device as associated skills. The default Mercantile guild doesn't have UMD, and the default Arcane Guild only has Craft (alchemy).

Buff Spells and WBL
For the purposes of this thread, I’ve assumed that only a bonus that remains active for the entirety of an eight-hour work day (or near enough) contributes towards the final craft check. This is not because of RAW reasons, but because of fluff reasons.

Magecraft is, for some reason, not an artificer infusion. As such, artificer smiths need a minor schema, scroll, (eternal) wand, or other item to get the benefit, which puts the first-level artificer well over WBL, and makes them require UMD to boot.

Skill enhancement is an artificer infusion with a duration of ten minutes per level, meaning that only Sindri can reasonably use it, and then only by going well over WBL with duration enhancers. I suppose this buff is only used when it’s really necessary.

Unity wine is a massively flavourful cleric spell with a duration of one hour per level. It provides a bonus to all skill checks, so it can be used to improve Appraise, Knowledge (architecture and engineering), and Use Magic Device as well. Here's the best part: you cast it on some wine, giving you four doses—but you have to share them, the duration starts right away. So with this spell, you have a good reason for your dwarven smiths to get together for a cup of mead every hour.

Basically, any four first-level clerics can provide unity wine for one another, each using their two first-level spell slots to create wine in turn, for eight hours total. Any two second-level clerics can provide unity wine for themselves and two others.

Artificers can access unity wine with spell-storing item or by activating a scroll or minor schema. It takes eight minor schemas to buff four artificers for an entire day. Generally speaking, it is easier to cooperate with two second-level clerics.

Item Familiar
Any third-level smith can take Item Familiar for an additional +6 or +7 bonus to Craft. This does require a rather high-priced item for the level (2000 GP out of 2700 GP WBL), but that’s not out of the question for such a focused character.

Taking Skill Focus (Diplomacy) at level 1 and then Marshal 1 at level 3 allows you to take both feats that require three levels to qualify: Item Familiar and Words of Creation.

Traits
Any smith can take the Illiterate trait and gain +1 to Craft, then spend two skill points to become literate.
Any smith can take Specialized to gain +1 to a specific Craft skill, and -2 to all others.
The priest, elder, and director can take Spellgifted (transmutation) to increase the duration of unity wine by one hour.



Item
Source


Apprentice
Dungeon Master's Guide II


armour enhancements, nonmagical
Dragon #358


artificer
Eberron Campaign Setting


cloistered cleric
Unearthed Arcana


commoner
Dungeon Master's Guide


Craft domain
Spell Compendium


dwarf paragon
Unearthed Arcana


dwarvencraft item
Races of Stone


earth dwarf
Unearthed Arcana


expert
Dungeon Master's Guide


fairy dust
Complete Mage


Favored
Cityscape


Flaws
Unearthed Arcana


guild system
Cityscape


Item Familiar
Unearthed Arcana


magecraft
Eberron Campaign Setting


magewright
Eberron Campaign Setting


masterwork tool
Player's Handbook


metamagic rod, lesser
Dungeon Master's Guide


minor schema
Magic of Eberron


Primary Contact
Cityscape


skill enhancement
Eberron Campaign Setting


Skill Focus
Player's Handbook


spell-storing item
Eberron Campaign Setting


unity wine
Player's Guide to Eberron


Wealth domain
Spell Compendium


Words of Creation
Book of Exalted Deeds




Mundane Blacksmiths
All NPCs, and no magic in sight. Your regular apprentices, journeymen, masters, and grandmasters.

Apprentice Blacksmith

Dwarf commoner 1
Abilities: 12/8/12/13/11/7
Feats: Apprentice (Craftsman)
Skills: Appraise +5 (4 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +11 (4 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +5 (4 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools

Craft (blacksmithing)

+4 ranks
+1 intelligence
+2 circumstance (tools)
+2 competence (Apprentice)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+11 total

Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Apprentice).


Journeyman Blacksmith

Dwarf commoner 1
Abilities: 12/8/12/13/11/7
Feats: Apprentice (Craftman), Skill Focus (Craft), any one flaw
Skills: Appraise +5 (4 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +14 (4 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +5 (4 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools

Craft (blacksmithing)

+4 ranks
+1 intelligence
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+2 competence (Apprentice)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+14 total

Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Apprentice).


Master Blacksmith

Dwarf expert 1
Abilities: 12/8/12/13/11/7
Feats: Favored, Primary Contact, Skill Focus (Craft), any two flaws
Skills: Appraise +5/+7 (4 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +15 (5 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +5 (4 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools

Craft (blacksmithing) bonus:

+5 ranks
+1 intelligence
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+2 competence (Favored)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+15 total

Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Blacksmith’s Guild).
Can sell items at a 5% markup in cities with a guildhouse (Favored).

A journeyman becoming a master retrains Apprentice into Favored and Commoner into Expert.


Grandmaster Blacksmith

Middle-aged dwarf expert 2
Abilities: 11/7/11/14/12/8
Feats: Favored, Primary Contact, Skill Focus (Craft), any two flaws
Skills: Appraise +7/+9 (5 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +19 (6 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +7 (5 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools

Craft (blacksmithing)

+6 ranks
+2 intelligence
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+2 competence (Favored)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+2 synergy (Knowledge (architecture and engineering))
+19 total

Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Blacksmith’s Guild).
Can sell items at a 5% markup in cities with a guildhouse (Favored).

There are lots of interesting things to say about these smiths:
The guild structure makes you a better smith. A non-guild smith has one rank less than a guild smith (Primary Contact).
A smith who’s never had training (no Apprentice) loses out on a +2 competence bonus, unless they managed to get into good standing with a guild without apprenticeship (Favored).
A smith who doesn’t have Knowledge skills (i.e. a commoner without Education) loses out on a +2 synergy bonus, but that doesn’t become relevant until you’re a really good smith (five ranks at second level).
A poor smith is likely to stay poor. Masterwork tools cost 50 gp, and it takes a year before they start being profitable. Joining a guild costs 25 gp up front, and you need Favored to earn a profit. Can't afford them? Enjoy having a +12 bonus against the guild's +15.
To emphasize the last point, let's calculate some sample incomes.
Craft can be used Profession-style to earn half your check result in gp per week, but we don’t want to use that option. Firstly, it’s more profitable to earn through the crafting rules. Secondly, guild benefits don’t show up until you can calculate sale prices and material costs.

A master smith (Craft +15) can take 10 to craft a DC 15 item, accelerated, making 625 sp’s worth of progress.
Their material expenses are 208 sp, reduced by 10% to 187.5 sp thanks to the guild.
Their sale price is increased by 5% to 656.25 sp, thanks to Favored.
Their profits before dues are thus 468.75 sp. The guild takes a 15% tax on profits, which is 70 5/16 sp (leaving a net profit of 398 7/16 sp). The guild benefit is only 20 ⅚ + 31 Ľ = 52 1/12 sp per week, so they’re actually losing money! But clever accounting is older than Rome, and they can probably get the tax down a bit by calculating labour costs, write-offs on the workshop, travel expenses, and so on. It’s reasonable to assume that another third of the weekly take goes up in costs (218.75 sp, for convenience), resulting in a tax of 37.5 sp, and a net monthly profit of 80 gp (versus 50 gp with Profession-style crafting).

The same smith not in a guild will only have a +12 bonus (+14 if they have Apprentice, but there's no DC 14 item to craft). They can take 10 to craft a DC 12 item, accelerated, making 484 sp’s worth of progress. Their material expenses are 161 ⅓ sp, their sundry expenses are the same, so their net profits are 161 ⅓ sp, about 64 gp per month (versus 44 gp with Profession-style crafting).

Note that the +5% sale price is the benefit of Favored, not regular guild membership. A non-Favored smith without Primary Contact won’t earn more than a non-guild smith.
It's nice how the numbers work out, and only a little (very reasonable) creative bookkeeping is required :smalltongue:. The game mechanics—quite accidentally, I'm sure—provide reasonable explanations for all the differences between the various blacksmiths in the world.


Magesmiths
Still NPCs, but now with a little magic.

Magesmith

Dwarf magewright 1
Abilities: 12/8/12/13/11/7
Feats: Favored, Primary Contact, Skill Focus (Craft), any two flaws
Skills: Appraise +3/+5 (2 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +18 (5 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +5 (4 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools

Craft (blacksmithing)

+5 ranks
+1 intelligence
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+5 competence (magecraft)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+18 total

Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Blacksmith’s Guild).
Can sell items at a 5% markup in cities with a guildhouse (Favored).


Master Magesmith

Middle-aged dwarf magewright 2
Abilities: 11/7/11/14/12/8
Feats: Favored, Primary Contact, Skill Focus (Craft), any two flaws
Skills: Appraise +4/+6 (2.5 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +22 (6 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +7 (5 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools

Craft (blacksmithing)

+6 ranks
+2 intelligence
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+5 competence (magecraft)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+2 synergy (Knowledge (architecture and engineering))
+22 total

Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Blacksmith’s Guild).
Can sell items at a 5% markup in cities with a guildhouse (Favored).
Interestingly enough, the overlapping competence bonus of magecraft and Favored means these smiths are only +3 ahead of the non-magical competetion. Luckily, they can simply pick another skill to apply the Favored bonus to, such as Appraise, which is cross-class for magewrights and thus lagging behind a bit.


Exemplary Smiths
More dwarven than most. PC-classed.

Exemplar

Dwarf paragon 1
Abilities: 12/8/12/15/13/12
Feats: Favored, Primary Contact, Skill Focus (Craft), any two flaws
Skills: Appraise +6/+8 (4 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +19 (5 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +6 (4 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools


Craft (blacksmithing)
+5 ranks
+2 intelligence
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+2 competence (Favored)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+1 racial (paragon)
+17 total
Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Blacksmith’s Guild).
Can sell items at a 5% markup in cities with a guildhouse (Favored).


Paragon

Middle-aged dwarf paragon 2
Abilities: 11/7/11/16/14/13
Feats: Favored, Primary Contact, Skill Focus (Craft), any two flaws
Skills: Appraise +8/+10 (5 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +22 (6 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +8 (5 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools

Craft (blacksmithing)

+6 ranks
+3 intelligence
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+2 competence (Favored)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+2 racial (paragon)
+2 synergy (Knowledge (architecture and engineering))
+22 total
Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Blacksmith’s Guild).
Can sell items at a 5% markup in cities with a guildhouse (Favored).


Priest-smiths
PC-classed smiths with divine crafting abilities.

Priest of the Forge

Dwarf cloistered cleric 1
Craft domain, Wealth domain, Knowledge domain
Abilities: 12/8/12/15/14/11
Feats: Favored, Primary Contact, Skill Focus (Appraise)B, Skill Focus (Craft)B, any one flaw
Skills: Appraise +10/+12 (4 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +17 (5 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +7 (4 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools

Craft (blacksmithing)

+5 ranks
+2 intelligence
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+2 competence (Favored)
+1 morale (unity wine)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+17 total

Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Blacksmith’s Guild).
Can sell items at a 5% markup in cities with a guildhouse (Favored).


Elder of the Forge

Middle-aged dwarf cloistered cleric 2
Craft domain, Wealth domain, Knowledge domain
Abilities: 11/7/11/16/15/12
Feats: Favored, Primary Contact, Skill Focus (Appraise)B, Skill Focus (Craft)B, any one flaw
Skills: Appraise +12/+14 (5 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +21 (6 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +9 (5 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools

Craft (blacksmithing)

+6 ranks
+3 intelligence
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+2 competence (Favored)
+1 morale (unity wine)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+2 synergy (Knowledge (architecture and engineering))
+21 total

Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Blacksmith’s Guild).
Can sell items at a 5% markup in cities with a guildhouse (Favored).


Magic-blooded Blacksmiths
PC-classed smiths with need for extra Charisma.

Artificer

Magic-blooded dwarf artificer 1
Abilities: 12/8/12/15/11/14
Feats: Favored, Primary Contact, Skill Focus (Craft), any two flaws
Skills: Appraise +6/+8 (4 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +19 (5 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +6 (4 ranks), Use Magic Device +10 (4 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools, masterwork arcanometer (UMD tool), minor schema of magecraft

Craft (blacksmithing)

+5 ranks
+2 intelligence
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+5 competence (magecraft)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+19 total

Use Magic Device

+2 charisma
+2 circumstance (tools)
+2 competence (Favored)
+10 total

Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Artificer’s Guild).
Can sell items at a 5% markup in cities with a guildhouse (Favored).


Master Artificer

Middle-aged magic-blooded dwarf artificer 2
Abilities: 11/7/11/16/12/15
Feats: Favored, Primary Contact, Skill Focus (Craft), any two flaws
Skills: Appraise +8/+10 (5 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +23 (6 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +8 (5 ranks), Use Magic Device +11 (5 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools, masterwork arcanometer (UMD tool), minor schema of magecraft

Craft (blacksmithing)

+6 ranks
+3 intelligence
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+5 competence (magecraft)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+2 synergy (Knowledge (architecture and engineering))
+23 total

Use Magic Device

+5 ranks
+2 charisma
+2 circumstance (tools)
+2 competence (Favored)
+11 total

Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Artificer’s Guild).
Can sell items at a 5% markup in cities with a guildhouse (Favored).


Forge Director

Middle-aged magic-blooded dwarf marshal 1/cloistered cleric 1
Minor Aura (Motivate Intelligence), Craft domain, Wealth domain, Knowledge domain
Abilities: 11/7/11/15/12/16
Feats: Favored, Primary Contact, Skill Focus (Appraise)B, Skill Focus (Craft)B, Skill Focus (Diplomacy)B, any one flaw
Skills: Appraise +11/+13 (5 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +23 (6 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +8 (5 ranks)
Items: Masterwork blacksmithing tools

Craft (blacksmithing)

+6 ranks
+2 intelligence
+3 charisma (Minor Aura)
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+2 competence (Favored)
+1 morale (unity wine)
+2 racial (dwarf)
+2 synergy (Knowledge (architecture and engineering))
+23 total

Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Blacksmith’s Guild).
Can sell items at a 5% markup in cities with a guildhouse (Favored).


Sindri, Legendary Blacksmith
The greatest blacksmith alive, and still only third level.

Sindri, legendary blacksmith

Venerable magic-blooded earth dwarf cloistered cleric 1/marshal 1/artificer 1
Minor Aura (Motivate Intelligence), Craft domain, Wealth domain, Knowledge domain
Abilities: 4/2/8/18/14/17
Feats: Favored, Practiced Spellcaster (artificer), Primary Contact, Skill Focus (Appraise)B, Skill Focus (Craft)B, Skill Focus (Diplomacy)B, Words of Creation, any two flaws
Traits: Spellgifted (transmutation)
Skills: Appraise +14/+16 (6 ranks), Craft (blacksmithing) +39 (7 ranks), Knowledge (architecture and engineering) +11 (6 ranks), Spellcraft +11 (6 ranks), Use Magic Device +14 (6 ranks)
Items: 300 gp’s worth of fairy dust, lesser metamagic rod of extend spell, masterwork blacksmithing tools, masterwork arcanometer (UMD tool), minor schema of magecraft

Craft (blacksmithing)

+7 ranks
+4 intelligence
+3 charisma (Minor Aura)
+3 Skill Focus
+2 circumstance (tools)
+4 circumstance (skill enhancement)
+5 competence (magecraft)
+4 sacred (Words of Creation)
+1 morale (unity wine)
+4 racial (earth dwarf)
+2 synergy (Knowledge (architecture and engineering))
+39 total

Use Magic Device

+6 ranks
+3 charisma
+2 circumstance (tools)
+2 competence (Favored)
+1 morale (unity wine)
+14 total

Can buy raw materials with a 10% discount (Artificer’s Guild).
Can sell items at a 5% markup in cities with a guildhouse (Favored).


Cooperation
For the purposes of this thread, I'll assume a blacksmith can benefit from at most one Aid Another bonus, but an assisted smith can assist a third smith. This becomes important when the assisted smith has a bonus just a little too low to hit the next point of Aid Another bonus.

Any smith can use Aid Another to provide a +2 bonus to any other smith. All smiths have at least +9 to their check, so success is guaranteed. But there’s more: per Complete Adventurer page 96, any smith who can hit a DC 20 check can provide a +3 Aid Another bonus. Beyond that, a DC 30 check provides a +4 bonus, a DC 40 check a +5 bonus, and so on. Both the assister and the assistee must have 5 ranks in Craft (blacksmithing) to benefit from bonuses higher than +2.

With the scaling Aid Another bonuses, Sindri's forge has an organizational structure like this:

An apprentice (Craft +14) assists a master smith (Craft +20).
The master smith assists a forge elder (Craft +27).
The forge elder attempts (90% chance) to assist a master artificer (Craft +30-31)
Several master artificers attempt (55-60% chance) to assist Sindri (Craft +43-44).
Sindri takes 10 and crafts 53 × 50 = 2650 SP worth of masterwork component in one week, for a profit of 176 GP… except that it’s split between four smiths, and they used 2100 gp’s worth of fairy dust. Yes, crafting is still terrible money.

A little more seriously: Sindri can hit a DC 50 check every week—with plenty of help, but without fairy dust—so there are some pretty epic pieces in the dwarven armoury. When it's really necessary, fairy dust is unlimited, and nobody's whining about ruined materials, it's possible to craft an item requiring a DC 60 check, which is probably the most expensive mundane item ever made.

Using Dragon #358 material (minus the feat requirement, that's just crazy), you can actually determine what you get for a DC 50 check.
A DC 50 check is required to make a razor sharp, perfectly balanced, ornate dwarvencraft greatsword from folded metal and with a blood groove, which costs 2550 gp, though if I were going to that effort, I'd pay for adamantine, as well. Mainly, the sword gets +6 hardness and +10 hp, and the wielder gets +2 to Diplomacy or Intimidate, and +1 to damage.
A DC 51 check can also craft you a reinforced lightweight mithral dwarvencraft suit of full plate caster armour (13 500 gp), which is notable for having a +9 armour bonus, +4 maximum dexterity bonus, 20% ASF, and weighing only 40 lb.
This kind of worldbuilding is something I like about D&D, and I would totally put this in any game I play in (I would use this as backstory for my equipment, I mean, though I might play Blacksmith Accountant too, when it comes to it). I'm prepared to admit it's probably an accident that the rules work out this way, but it's pretty awesome that they do. So when a DM shows up who eyeballs GP values and is off by 1000%, I'm understandably not too thrilled. As far as I'm concerned, the players should work within the pre-established mechanics and expectations of the world as much as possible (whatever expectations these are--they don't have to be the book ones), presenting a consistent, predictable (at the micro level) world that players can plan their actions in, allowing deep, strategic gameplay. The guidelines on skill DCs are part of that.

You'll also note that without the consistency and robustness of the rules, you wouldn't have nearly as many roleplaying hooks as you would have eyeballing it.


So is this an example of reductio ad absurdum?

I think you're reading this in an extreme way. I'm pretty sure he's open to healthy discussion, rather than arguing
Yes, it is, and yes, I am. I suppose I am more of an extreme delegate-to-player-ist than Egg is a dictator. Still, stripped of absurdity, it is something to talk about.


About the whole "working together" thing, yes, of course. We're all working together. But that doesn't relieve the DM of his responsibilities. I still have to curate the gameplay experience, ideally toward maximum enjoyment on the part of the players.
Absolutely, but none of that means you can't off-load most of the mechanics and narration (i.e. work) to the players. You can leave the players the floor, and only step in to moderate when things are going beyond a certain point (which, as an experienced DM, you eyeball, of course). For example, if your player eyeballs a wall at DC 16 based on your description, and you had a 14 or an 18 in mind, you probably don't need to step in at all. First rule of improv, and all that: always say "yes" and roll with it. The more robust the system is, the more precise you can be. In combat, you can use exact AC, because the system is very detailed and every single point can be explained mechanically. For walls, that's not really a thing (though it could be, in a more complex system). Also, in combat, you can narrate the monster's response directly, whereas narrating a wall's response is... unlikely to charm your players (it's generally null, only the climber acts in the narrative).

A system like this is helped a great deal by pre-set standards on what kind of things a wall of type X does, because with clear standards, you can be precise without needing to intervene very much. For Sindri's forge above, I can figure out exactly what the Break DCs, hit points, and hardness of various parts of the building are. I can figure out how difficult it is to Climb the walls, Pick the locks, Swim the canal, or lift the anvil (and how much damage it deals when thrown). And the beauty is that I can show my work, because it's right there in the book, and I can be reasonably certain that other people would arrive at similar results. I'm playing in a world that exists somewhat independently of the DM's mind, or the player's mind, or even my own mind.


I submit that, to a great extent, this is a D&D 3.x-centric problem where the character build game is very deep and there's a huge range of skill levels you can buy with varying degrees of investment. As a contrast, I play Fate. In Fate, your skills are between 0 and +4, and you get a certain amount of them at each level. The GM knows explicitly what levels are achievable, as there's really no variation beyond that level. Similar in D&D5, you're either trained, or not. There's not a lot of variation for how much investment you make in a skill.
Yes, it probably is. And I like that kind of mechanical complexity/depth (in fact, the various D&D skill systems could do to be more complex, especially with regard to social skills). Matching the mechanics to the world is fun. If the mechanics are too vague or generic, it's too easy to match, and therefore boring, which is not fun.

Jay R
2020-05-05, 05:47 PM
Raises hand. I wanted to climb a tree to hide from oncoming hostiles. I had to roll Athletics DC 20 with 10 ST and no proficiency. Don't remember what I rolled, but I know it was not a 20. Different campaign. Granted I had to take off my armor for swimming, but the party wanted to swim across a moat, climb a small hill of rocks to reach an empty Keep, climb the wall to get to a low window, and go inside before approaching hostiles could see us. I have 10 ST and no proficiency in Athletics. The number of checks the party needed to make: 0. We got into the Keep because we wanted to.

Oh, I know about those kinds of things. DMs are human. They make mistakes all the time. But that's not what I was asking about -- or if they were, you left off that part.

But are these really enough to make a bad gaming experience? Really? That one moment turned an otherwise fun, exciting, challenging game into a bad gaming experience?

In the first case, it spoiled one combat for one character. Is this suppose to be important enough to upset anybody? And in the second case, the DM was trying to get you quickly to the approaching hostiles, and didn't take up game time on something that wasn't intended to be the challenge. Why is this bad?

These kinds of things happen all the time in every game. Move on.


Well there was the time that it took 3 sessions to discover that the sun didn't move...

Ya want jankey DCs that pissed people off though, we played Out of the Abyss. There was a climb check for a 5' high natural rock ledge at dc 11, the thief acrobat character failed that three times just trying to get somewhere for a clear bow shot and again after combat ended. Then, much later, a beholder lair featured a 100' vertical shaft carved and smoothed by magic as a defensive feature that was dc 10 to climb the whole thing but you only rolled during combat. Bad experience.

OK, I agree that the DM isn't very good. But why is that a bad experience? You had a harder time than expected once, and an easier time later. Does a good game become bad because the DM made a couple of mistakes?

In any game, if you want to focus on DM mistakes, you can do so. Or you can focus on the adventure, and the character you're paying.

I suggest that you can make your games more fun by focusing on the fun, instead of on the minor issues.

Assume that the overly difficult wall is crumbling, or moss-covered, or otherwise more difficult than it appeared, and get back into the game.

King of Nowhere
2020-05-05, 06:18 PM
Aren't you taking that chance anyway, since you don't know how often you'll be needing to climb in a given game?

that's a wrong approach. you don't "need" to climb in a given game. you have some problems, and you have a set of things that your character can do that you can use to solve those problems. climb, acrobacy, bluff, power attack, spellcasting, those are all tools that you can give. be creative. You'd be surprised how often i had chances to use a monk's slow fall, simply because i consider it as another tool in my problem-solving toolkit. if i was only using it to avoid damage when falling in a pit, i'd still be waiting.

prabe
2020-05-05, 07:49 PM
that's a wrong approach. you don't "need" to climb in a given game. you have some problems, and you have a set of things that your character can do that you can use to solve those problems. climb, acrobacy, bluff, power attack, spellcasting, those are all tools that you can give. be creative. You'd be surprised how often i had chances to use a monk's slow fall, simply because i consider it as another tool in my problem-solving toolkit. if i was only using it to avoid damage when falling in a pit, i'd still be waiting.

Fair enough; I'll rephrase it: Aren't you taking that chance anyway, since you don't know how often climbing will be relevant in a given game?

Sure, every thing the characters can do is a potential problem-solver, and it's good to use them creatively. I don't see how more-detailed DC tables help with that.

Telok
2020-05-05, 08:25 PM
OK, I agree that the DM isn't very good. But why is that a bad experience? You had a harder time than expected once, and an easier time later. Does a good game become bad because the DM made a couple of mistakes?
.....
Assume that the overly difficult wall is crumbling, or moss-covered, or otherwise more difficult than it appeared, and get back into the game.

The looney dcs and failure were the dm reading straight from the official wotc adventure. The different people who wrote different parts of the adventure didn't even know what the dcs represented. This isn't some rare or unusual thing, my experience was that all new gms did these kind of random buttpull dcs because they had no standard or guidance to hang things on. One of them quit dming because we kept having this issue. My experience with current d&d has been univerally negative with new dms because of the lack of clarity and guidelines for stuff beyond attacking things in melee.

On the second point retconning a shoulder high rock ledge into something else "harder to climb" doesn't work well when it's one person with low dice rolls. You start moving towards Three Stooges and Monty Python style results when you have your "experts" flailing around and no-skill mooks succeeding because "roll high" matters more than anything you try to do or say. And if you're constantly doing that then what's the point in describing the scene with any detail since you're just going to retcon the place to fit higher or lower dice rolls? Its fine in Paranoia, thats supposed to be slapstick. Roll high or fail like a chump is jarring when you've billed imthe game as heroic adventure and the dice roll the other way half the time.

Pex
2020-05-05, 08:30 PM
Replace with "Not worthwhile" or "Not reliable enough to play into a character concept of your design", then. I say this while tabbed out of Assassin's Creed 2, I really like to know whether my character will actually be able to climb around like Ezio or whether attempting to do so is so unreliable that I may as well not bother before I waste a skill proficiency on it. I also want to know, mind you, whether or not I'll actually have to roll to climb at all, or whether someone with no climb ranks can just freely climb things and actually that athletics proficiency is pointless when it comes to climbing. I don't think that wanting to know whether that character concept is viable before I try to make it is so wrong?

It's like asking someone to make a sorcerer without telling them what their spells do until after they've chosen them and are attempting to cast one. And if you want to houserule a spell, a monster or a weapon to do something different, or not to have a clearly-defined effect at all, then you can... but imagine if fireball did something different with every DM: you wouldn't have a clue whether or not it was a spell you were interested in taking until after you were already using it. That doesn't appeal to me.

I don't mind not being able to be Ezio. I don't mind everyone suddenly being Ezio. But I do mind not having a clue whether or not my character can be Ezio until it's far, far too late.

What I've been saying but with better verbiage. :smallbiggrin:


The looney dcs and failure were the dm reading straight from the official wotc adventure. The different people who wrote different parts of the adventure didn't even know what the dcs represented. This isn't some rare or unusual thing, my experience was that all new gms did these kind of random buttpull dcs because they had no standard or guidance to hang things on. One of them quit dming because we kept having this issue. My experience with current d&d has been univerally negative with new dms because of the lack of clarity and guidelines for stuff beyond attacking things in melee.


I'm intrigued by this point of view on the matter.

prabe
2020-05-05, 08:44 PM
Replace with "Not worthwhile" or "Not reliable enough to play into a character concept of your design", then. I say this while tabbed out of Assassin's Creed 2, I really like to know whether my character will actually be able to climb around like Ezio or whether attempting to do so is so unreliable that I may as well not bother before I waste a skill proficiency on it. I also want to know, mind you, whether or not I'll actually have to roll to climb at all, or whether someone with no climb ranks can just freely climb things and actually that athletics proficiency is pointless when it comes to climbing. I don't think that wanting to know whether that character concept is viable before I try to make it is so wrong?

It's like asking someone to make a sorcerer without telling them what their spells do until after they've chosen them and are attempting to cast one. And if you want to houserule a spell, a monster or a weapon to do something different, or not to have a clearly-defined effect at all, then you can... but imagine if fireball did something different with every DM: you wouldn't have a clue whether or not it was a spell you were interested in taking until after you were already using it. That doesn't appeal to me.

I don't mind not being able to be Ezio. I don't mind everyone suddenly being Ezio. But I do mind not having a clue whether or not my character can be Ezio until it's far, far too late.

Maybe it's because I like to think I'm the sort of GM who'd respond well and reasonably to a player who did this, but maybe try talking to the GM? Talk to the GM before the game (at least before you make your character, if you're joining an extant campaign); if things seem a little weird during the game, talk to the GM again--remind the GM of your previous conversation. Maybe you can talk to other players who know the GM better to get a feel for the GM's style, but that sounds a little too much like players-vs.-GM for my tastes.

In 5E, at least, the DM has a lot of flexibility. I think that's a strength of the game, but I understand that the players want A) at least some consistency and B) for their characters to have a chance to shine (or at least for their chargen decisions to matter). It's on the DM to provide those two things, among their other responsibilities.

kyoryu
2020-05-05, 08:49 PM
On the second point retconning a shoulder high rock ledge into something else "harder to climb" doesn't work well when it's one person with low dice rolls. You start moving towards Three Stooges and Monty Python style results when you have your "experts" flailing around and no-skill mooks succeeding because "roll high" matters more than anything you try to do or say. And if you're constantly doing that then what's the point in describing the scene with any detail since you're just going to retcon the place to fit higher or lower dice rolls? Its fine in Paranoia, thats supposed to be slapstick. Roll high or fail like a chump is jarring when you've billed imthe game as heroic adventure and the dice roll the other way half the time.

If there's no pressure, and a fairly trivial obstacle, either don't roll, or allow a Take 10/20 under 3.x.

Rolling should be reserved for pressure situations where there's something at stake. Blaming the failure on the situation is also a good way to avoid slapstick.

Zarrgon
2020-05-05, 09:36 PM
Replace with "Not worthwhile" or "Not reliable enough to play into a character concept of your design", then. I say this while tabbed out of Assassin's Creed 2, I really like to know whether my character will actually be able to climb around like Ezio or whether attempting to do so is so unreliable that I may as well not bother before I waste a skill proficiency on it. I also want to know, mind you, whether or not I'll actually have to roll to climb at all, or whether someone with no climb ranks can just freely climb things and actually that athletics proficiency is pointless when it comes to climbing. I don't think that wanting to know whether that character concept is viable before I try to make it is so wrong?

But this sounds like you don't even under stand how D&D, most RPGs and even games in general work.

You understand there is no "cheat code", special thing you can do to win the game?

You understand that the whole basic game concept is based around the idea of a living virtual interacting world where the challenges are varied to an extreme, always changing and always increasing in difficulty?



It's like asking someone to make a sorcerer without telling them what their spells do until after they've chosen them and are attempting to cast one. And if you want to houserule a spell, a monster or a weapon to do something different, or not to have a clearly-defined effect at all, then you can... but imagine if fireball did something different with every DM: you wouldn't have a clue whether or not it was a spell you were interested in taking until after you were already using it. That doesn't appeal to me.


Your example falls apart and makes no sense though. Your not talking a skill without knowing what it can do. You, should hopefully under stand what the climb spell lets your character do.

And what your saying about magic in general IS true for EVERY DM. Just for example look over at the Thread titled "Magic Microwave". And magic is about 100% worse then the skill problem as a LOT of players don't read or understand the magic rules. And it's even true of some DMs too.

And a LOT about how useful a skill or spell or any ability is, is all about WHAT a player tries to do with it. If the player wants to have the character hang out at the Happy Tree Apple Farm where all the trees are DC 5 to climb, then the character will be the awesome demi god of climbing. Should the player have the character go to the Black Keep of Evil, they would find the trees there DC 15....and the Cursed Isle of the Undead has DC 25 trees, and undead ents too.

Saint-Just
2020-05-05, 11:44 PM
And a LOT about how useful a skill or spell or any ability is, is all about WHAT a player tries to do with it. If the player wants to have the character hang out at the Happy Tree Apple Farm where all the trees are DC 5 to climb, then the character will be the awesome demi god of climbing. Should the player have the character go to the Black Keep of Evil, they would find the trees there DC 15....and the Cursed Isle of the Undead has DC 25 trees, and undead ents too.

I suppose that this gets into simulationism vs story territory. Even if we're talking about heroic exploits like surviving great falls, breaking chains with your bare hands etc. there is still place for relatively precise abilities - hero can survive fall of 100 feet but if he fights near 600 feet chasm he knows that fall would kill him, being able to tear apart your typical manacles does not mean you can break 1-inch adamantium chain and so on. But some subordinate consistency to the narrative - if the city watch needs to hold falsely accused hero he would not be able to get rid of normal manacles, if he needs to escape from Evil Overlord's prison adamantium chains would not be able to hold him.

DCs for the same action getting harder relies on getting PCs into the progressively weirder and more dangerous locations - which is not so widespread as to be default assumption. Challenging encounters (getting ambushed by the high-level NPCs near the capital while delivering urgent news, non-lethally infiltrating treasonous noble's keep in search of the compromising evidence) does not need unusual terrain, and in some case preclude them (forest near the capital is unlikely to be unusual, unless utility magic is widespread (not a default assumption) there's not much reasons for the keep's wall to be harder than DC 25). That is why enough people consider it important to have benchmarks for normal scenery\situations. In most campaigns a tree near the Castle of Doom strongly resemble one on the Happy Farm, so assigning different DC to them is not desirable.



You understand that the whole basic game concept is based around the idea of a living virtual interacting world where the challenges are varied to an extreme, always changing and always increasing in difficulty?

Overall challenge does not necessary mean that producing the same (object-level) result (climb the tree, tie your shoes, deal 10 points of damage) becomes harder, only that it takes more to achieve meta-result of "victory". Even if trees stay the same you still qualify from climbing the trees to take potshots from safety all the way to fighting while running on the treetops.

Unavenger
2020-05-06, 09:05 AM
Maybe it's because I like to think I'm the sort of GM who'd respond well and reasonably to a player who did this, but maybe try talking to the GM? Talk to the GM before the game (at least before you make your character, if you're joining an extant campaign); if things seem a little weird during the game, talk to the GM again--remind the GM of your previous conversation. Maybe you can talk to other players who know the GM better to get a feel for the GM's style, but that sounds a little too much like players-vs.-GM for my tastes.

In 5E, at least, the DM has a lot of flexibility. I think that's a strength of the game, but I understand that the players want A) at least some consistency and B) for their characters to have a chance to shine (or at least for their chargen decisions to matter). It's on the DM to provide those two things, among their other responsibilities.

On the DM's side, though, I want, how did Rich Burlew put it, "I want tools that I can use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want." Now, granted, he was actually talking about a 3.5 skill (diplomacy), and mind you I'm not a great fan of 3.5 either for some of the same reasons, but that same problem is far, far worse in 5e. If I ask my DM, they don't really know how to answer. And honestly, I don't want to have to spend session zero asking how my skills all work before we can start the game.

If there are guidelines, you can always ignore them. Lack of guidelines doesn't improve "Flexibility". The DM can always do what they want. They're the DM. But 5e doesn't even provide an option for consistency.


But this sounds like you don't even under stand how D&D, most RPGs and even games in general work.

The pot calling the kettle black is one thing, but more so when the kettle is bright white.


You understand there is no "cheat code", special thing you can do to win the game?

Yes.


You understand that the whole basic game concept is based around the idea of a living virtual interacting world where the challenges are varied to an extreme, always changing and always increasing in difficulty?
Virtual interacting world, sure. "Challenges are varied to an extreme, always changing and always increasing in difficulty"? Balls.


Your example falls apart and makes no sense though. Your not talking a skill without knowing what it can do. You, should hopefully under stand what the climb spell lets your character do.

You would hope you understood what the climb skill, and more specifically a given roll of the climb skill, allowed you to do. But in 5e, I don't.


And what your saying about magic in general IS true for EVERY DM. Just for example look over at the Thread titled "Magic Microwave". And magic is about 100% worse then the skill problem as a LOT of players don't read or understand the magic rules. And it's even true of some DMs too.

At least there are magic rules. Imagine if there weren't, and Flame Strike just said that it created a pillar of divine fire in a nearby area without any indication of how much damage it did, how big it was, or indeed whether or not it went through walls. If I wanted to play Roll to Dodge, I would.


And a LOT about how useful a skill or spell or any ability is, is all about WHAT a player tries to do with it. If the player wants to have the character hang out at the Happy Tree Apple Farm where all the trees are DC 5 to climb, then the character will be the awesome demi god of climbing. Should the player have the character go to the Black Keep of Evil, they would find the trees there DC 15....and the Cursed Isle of the Undead has DC 25 trees, and undead ents too.

Which would be great if this were specified literally anywhere in the rules.

(I did actually write up an "Area level" system for 5e, where you only have to decide how difficult a challenge is for a challenge that exists in that area, rather than in general, but I'm not sure if I like that - I would sorta rather have two identical trees under identical circumstances in different locations be equally difficult to climb.)

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-06, 09:27 AM
If there are guidelines, you can always ignore them. Lack of guidelines doesn't improve "Flexibility". The DM can always do what they want. They're the DM. But 5e doesn't even provide an option for consistency.



See, this brings us back to the idea of culture, and how it runs things just as much as the rules themselves. Guidelines are great as guidelines, but that wasn't the culture that developed for previous editions of DnD. In order to shift the table culture away from the "guidelines" being seen as tool for fighting the DM, who must be toxic by definition if he didn't adhere to them, they had to be absent from 5e.

Maybe when the culture has been sufficiently shifted, they can be reintroduced.

Willie the Duck
2020-05-06, 09:47 AM
If there are guidelines, you can always ignore them. Lack of guidelines doesn't improve "Flexibility". The DM can always do what they want. They're the DM. But 5e doesn't even provide an option for consistency.

Which would be great if this were specified literally anywhere in the rules.
I don't know if I've said it here or in a 5e thread, but I really disagree that this is true. You can easily have consistency (and there are specifically delineated rules). You just say, "You come up to a wall. Given your expertise, you'd say that it is a moderate climbing challenge." The problem only comes in with consistently mapping it to the real-world-type descriptions.

Mind you, I don't have a problem with a TTRPG in general having a direct mapping to IRL descriptions, except for D&D -- because it is has such a broad gamer base that taking a specific stand on how gritty realism/cinematic/mythic the physical actions get to be leaves much of the fanbase's expectations in the dust (at which point they change/ignore it, meaning that the consistency doesn't end up happening anyway).


The pot calling the kettle black is one thing, but more so when the kettle is bright white.
Honestly, I wouldn't bother. This is not a fight worth having. If you'll notice, no one else has jumped up to agree with any of the posturing.


At least there are magic rules. Imagine if there weren't, and Flame Strike just said that it created a pillar of divine fire in a nearby area without any indication of how much damage it did, how big it was, or indeed whether or not it went through walls. If I wanted to play Roll to Dodge, I would.

You are correct. The instant you enter the domain of combat rules (spells included), D&D is incredibly specific about where and when and how. D&D has always done so and the expectations are there for it to be the case and the player base generally agrees upon what everything ought to map to (with some exceptions, such as how hot a fireball is or the like). It doesn't hurt that the primary mechanism much of combat interacts with (Hit Points) is an abstraction.

Unavenger
2020-05-06, 10:02 AM
See, this brings us back to the idea of culture, and how it runs things just as much as the rules themselves. Guidelines are great as guidelines, but that wasn't the culture that developed for previous editions of DnD. In order to shift the table culture away from the "guidelines" being seen as tool for fighting the DM, who must be toxic by definition if he didn't adhere to them, they had to be absent from 5e.

Maybe when the culture has been sufficiently shifted, they can be reintroduced.

That's a really terrible excuse. If that was Wizards' reason, they could easily have explained that the guidelines were only tools for the DM to use, and that the players should not assume that they will always be true. They could have finished their skill system and explained that you can always not use it if you don't want to.

"We have a totally great ruleset, and we wish we could share it with you, but the world's not ready for it yet." Ugh, no.


I don't know if I've said it here or in a 5e thread, but I really disagree that this is true. You can easily have consistency (and there are specifically delineated rules). You just say, "You come up to a wall. Given your expertise, you'd say that it is a moderate climbing challenge." The problem only comes in with consistently mapping it to the real-world-type descriptions.

Yes, and that's the part of it that I have an issue with. I'd like the difficulty to depend on the wall, not on the otherworldly force beyond the fourth wall known as Dee Em.


You are correct. The instant you enter the domain of combat rules (spells included), D&D is incredibly specific about where and when and how. D&D has always done so and the expectations are there for it to be the case and the player base generally agrees upon what everything ought to map to (with some exceptions, such as how hot a fireball is or the like). It doesn't hurt that the primary mechanism much of combat interacts with (Hit Points) is an abstraction.

Hit points, like skill rolls, are indeed abstract. One of them, however, leads to a consistent result: The game decides whether or not I live or die without ambiguity, but not whether I can reach the top of the hill or not. I'm not Shrodinger's Cat, I'm the Grand Old Duke of York.

Zarrgon
2020-05-06, 10:10 AM
DCs for the same action getting harder relies on getting PCs into the progressively weirder and more dangerous locations - which is not so widespread as to be default assumption.

This "default assumption" is the core of the D&D rules



Challenging encounters (getting ambushed by the high-level NPCs near the capital while delivering urgent news, non-lethally infiltrating treasonous noble's keep in search of the compromising evidence) does not need unusual terrain, and in some case preclude them (forest near the capital is unlikely to be unusual, unless utility magic is widespread (not a default assumption) there's not much reasons for the keep's wall to be harder than DC 25).

To be fair if an encounter does not have any terrain effects then it's no a challenging encounter, it's just maybe a challenging combat.

While one of the big strengths of D&D is anything can happen anywhere anytime...still most challenging encounters will take place in fantastic locations with unusual terrain.




That is why enough people consider it important to have benchmarks for normal scenery\situations. In most campaigns a tree near the Castle of Doom strongly resemble one on the Happy Farm, so assigning different DC to them is not desirable.

Well, this might just be a huge clash of cultures right here. Your saying you want the whole world on a flat DC 'Easy Mode'. So no matter where the PCs go or what they do the DC is always "don't even bother to roll you automatically succeed and can't fail". Now that is a fine way to play the game if that is fun for you, but I doubt too many people play the game that way.

In other games the "normal benchmarks" are a bit useless, as not too long after 1st level the adventure of a PC will not be "normal".



Virtual interacting world, sure. "Challenges are varied to an extreme, always changing and always increasing in difficulty"? Balls.

Just note that this very basic concept is a foundation of the D&D rules. If your gaming culture ignores this, fine, but it is the way most people play D&D.



Which would be great if this were specified literally anywhere in the rules.

Well, it's sure not in the 5E rules.....

prabe
2020-05-06, 10:23 AM
On the DM's side, though, I want, how did Rich Burlew put it, "I want tools that I can use in the game, not a blank check to do what I want. I can already do what I want." Now, granted, he was actually talking about a 3.5 skill (diplomacy), and mind you I'm not a great fan of 3.5 either for some of the same reasons, but that same problem is far, far worse in 5e. If I ask my DM, they don't really know how to answer. And honestly, I don't want to have to spend session zero asking how my skills all work before we can start the game.

If there are guidelines, you can always ignore them. Lack of guidelines doesn't improve "Flexibility". The DM can always do what they want. They're the DM. But 5e doesn't even provide an option for consistency.

So, if you were to ask me about my 5E games, I'd say that having Proficiency would probably reduce the number of times you'd have to roll, especially if you weren't under stress of one sort or the other. If you did have to roll, you'd probably have a good idea of the DC beforehand so your character could make a considered decision. I'd tell you that I'd try to keep things consistent, but circumstances are rarely identical. I'd tell you that it's not unusual for me to ask for non-standard combinations of Ability and Proficiency (I even did this in 3.x). I'd say that I sometimes gate things behind Proficiencies, and that I sometimes give Advantage on rolls if a character has multiple Proficiencies that apply. I'd tell you that Tool Proficiencies might come up in strange ways (such as Intelligence(Carpenter's Tools) or Intelligence(Mason's Tools) to figure out how to bring down a building). I'd say that I have a soft spot for skill monkeys and I don't want to nerf someone's character who's playing one.

I wouldn't argue if you decided that a DM who doesn't know how to answer is plausibly not a good DM for you. I would argue that by not asking, you're probably missing out on the DMs who know--and you're not giving those who haven't thought about it a chance to improve (which isn't necessarily the players' job, but I'm all in favor of DMs getting better). Obviously, you can play what and how you want, and with whom, though not everyone has the opportunity to pick and choose.

Willie the Duck
2020-05-06, 10:55 AM
Yes, and that's the part of it that I have an issue with. I'd like the difficulty to depend on the wall, not on the otherworldly force beyond the fourth wall known as Dee Em.

Well, as others have said, the wall depends on the Dee Em regardless, since they put it there, but let's not belabor that point.

My point, as I hopefully alluded to, is that it always will with D&D. Some people see D&D (or the nonmagical physical interaction portion thereof) as a game just slightly divorced from the historical wargames it was derived (such that fighters are regular soldiers on a battlefield, complete with the realistic limitations thereof). Others thing they should be Erol Flynn in tights, or maybe Mel Gibson in facepaint. Others are playing Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Depending on which of these people are playing, a given IRL wall description should vary between easy to doable to nigh-impossible. If the gamebook takes a solid position on these things (say, the Erol/Mel range), it just means that the historical realism and the Crouching Tiger people ignore such descriptions, and the inter-group consistency still is absent (and without inter group consistency, there's not much reason not to make your own list or use a 3pp).

Personally I think more of this should be discussed in the DMG, even perhaps with some examples of 3 tiers of difficulty (I understand why they didn't as it might cause as much confusion as it negates), but in general I think if one is looking for consistency in D&D in generalized task resolution, that that ship sailed in ~1975.


Hit points, like skill rolls, are indeed abstract. One of them, however, leads to a consistent result: The game decides whether or not I live or die without ambiguity, but not whether I can reach the top of the hill or not. I'm not Shrodinger's Cat, I'm the Grand Old Duke of York.

And the game rules decide whether you reach the top of the hill or not. The hill is just defined as easy, medium, or hard, not with a given slope.

EggKookoo
2020-05-06, 11:13 AM
That's a really terrible excuse. If that was Wizards' reason, they could easily have explained that the guidelines were only tools for the DM to use, and that the players should not assume that they will always be true. They could have finished their skill system and explained that you can always not use it if you don't want to.

They did. That's how it's presented in 3e. The 3e DMG says repeatedly that the DM is meant to conjure up DCs (10 to 20, or just go with 15 to make it easy on yourself), using the examples only as a guide. It also explicitly cuts the players out from not only participating in this decision, but in most cases from even being allowed to know it's happening. The only warning I saw in my 3e DMG about denying the players access to this aspect of the game is for the DM to watch out for player dissatisfaction.

Doesn't seem to have caused the cultural response they might have intended...

kyoryu
2020-05-06, 11:21 AM
I don't know if I've said it here or in a 5e thread, but I really disagree that this is true. You can easily have consistency (and there are specifically delineated rules). You just say, "You come up to a wall. Given your expertise, you'd say that it is a moderate climbing challenge." The problem only comes in with consistently mapping it to the real-world-type descriptions.

And any description is incredibly lacking compared to what your senses would detect. A description plus the DC, to me, allows the player to come up with an appropriate image in mind that is more rich than I could give them. Unless you're literally showing photographs of everything in your game, I guess.


That's a really terrible excuse. If that was Wizards' reason, they could easily have explained that the guidelines were only tools for the DM to use, and that the players should not assume that they will always be true. They could have finished their skill system and explained that you can always not use it if you don't want to.

"We have a totally great ruleset, and we wish we could share it with you, but the world's not ready for it yet." Ugh, no.

Even under this scenario, they're not saying that. They're saying "we think this is a totally great ruleset. We've seen suggestions and examples be weaponized, and so at this point choose not to include them. In the future, when the 'suggestions are written law' mindset is less prevalent, we'll consider including them again."

There's been a lot of mentality to treat guidelines with the force of law. See: WBL.


Yes, and that's the part of it that I have an issue with. I'd like the difficulty to depend on the wall, not on the otherworldly force beyond the fourth wall known as Dee Em.

Unless running a prepublished adventure, you have to. The DM is the one that put the wall there. If they decide that they want it to be a particular difficulty, it will be, they'll just find the descriptor and modifiers that make it so.

Again, if you realllly just prefer that games boil things down to base descriptors and modifiers, great! People have preferences. But it's not something that objectively is wrong with 5e or other games that don't provide such an exhaustive list.

IOW, I'm not saying 3.x is wrong for having that stuff. I am saying that 5e (and other games) aren't wrong for omitting them. Which, again, doesn't mean that you can't have your preferences, and dislike 5e for that reason. Literally nobody is saying that.

Jay R
2020-05-06, 12:09 PM
The looney dcs and failure were the dm reading straight from the official wotc adventure.

Yup. That's what I said -- "the DM isn't very good". The DM's job is a long series of judgment calls, even when using an official adventure. The DM has abdicated his responsibility to give the best possible adventure if he just reads straight from the adventure without thinking it through -- as you have just shown.


The different people who wrote different parts of the adventure didn't even know what the dcs represented. This isn't some rare or unusual thing, my experience was that all new gms did these kind of random buttpull dcs because they had no standard or guidance to hang things on. One of them quit dming because we kept having this issue. My experience with current d&d has been univerally negative with new dms because of the lack of clarity and guidelines for stuff beyond attacking things in melee.

I think that problem is that they expect some kind of standard or guidance to hang things on other than their own judgment.

Your problem isn't current D&D. Your problem in new DMs who are looking for the rules or the published adventure to supply the clarity and guidelines that are really their own ultimate responsibility.

These aren't "bad gaming experiences". They're annoyances.


On the second point retconning a shoulder high rock ledge into something else "harder to climb" doesn't work well when it's one person with low dice rolls. You start moving towards Three Stooges and Monty Python style results when you have your "experts" flailing around and no-skill mooks succeeding because "roll high" matters more than anything you try to do or say. And if you're constantly doing that then what's the point in describing the scene with any detail since you're just going to retcon the place to fit higher or lower dice rolls? Its fine in Paranoia, thats supposed to be slapstick. Roll high or fail like a chump is jarring when you've billed imthe game as heroic adventure and the dice roll the other way half the time.

Have you seen the 1973 movie The Three Musketeers starring Michael York?

D'Artagnan tries to catch his foe by swinging on a rope, and misses, eventually dropping into a mud puddle.
Porthos loses his weapon in the first melee four times.
Two villains are trying to stop Constance, and she turns, while holding onto the polearm one of them is using, knocking them both down.
Athos has won an individual fight, when his cloak gets caught in a watermill, pulling him off his feet and making him an easy target for his enemy, who picks his sword back up and wins.
D'Artagnan fights Rochefort, and uses the "secret move" his father taught him. It fails, and Rochefort stabs him in the side. [He wins that fight only because his servant hits Rochefort with a tree.]
D'Artagnan tries to throw a package up to a window, and it goes in the wrong window.
D'Artagnan leaps through a window and sees four guards standing on a carpet. So he does the heroic, swashbuckling move of pulling the carpet to trip them all -- and the carpet rips.


This is considered one of the best swashbucklers ever made.

The idea that the "expert" never flails around at what should be easy tasks is not supported by heroic stories in general -- and doesn't make a good game.

Yes, the dice are real. Yes, they will make you fail on many tasks. Yes, some tasks will be harder than they appear. Yes, other tasks will be easier than you expected. And yes, the DM's judgment call will sometimes be wildly wrong.

A hero isn't somebody who is never hampered by the perversity of the universe. A hero is somebody who overcomes all these obstacles and eventually wins anyway.

When your character fails to leap up onto the wall, he should laugh at himself and continue to fight, with a mocking smile at his own clumsiness.

I think that you'll find that that approach will impress the DM more than complaining about DC. You'll also discover that it's a lot more fun to play.

Saint-Just
2020-05-06, 12:11 PM
This "default assumption" is the core of the D&D rules
Well, this might just be a huge clash of cultures right here. Your saying you want the whole world on a flat DC 'Easy Mode'. So no matter where the PCs go or what they do the DC is always "don't even bother to roll you automatically succeed and can't fail". Now that is a fine way to play the game if that is fun for you, but I doubt too many people play the game that way.


Flat DC does not mean easy mode. That castle a couple of miles from a Happy Tree Farm where no-risk romantic subplot plays out? Still have DC20-to-25 walls and possibly DC40 locks (unless the lord relies entirely on his guards instead of locks).

And unless you heavily tweak the combat system many tricks are supposed to get easy-to-automatic, like tumbling to avoid AoO. Even broken ground which makes it harder is not the same as simply upping the difficulty - it hinders everyone. I do not usually hear about evil floors of the castle of Evil giving penalties to the party but not to the enemies.

Finally it does seem that what you presenting as normal skirts dangerously close to "roll and shout". If starting character needs to roll 10-or-above to climb a wall, and high-level character needs to roll 10-or-above to climb the wall - is it really necessary to have skills system?

prabe
2020-05-06, 12:16 PM
Unless running a prepublished adventure, you have to. The DM is the one that put the wall there. If they decide that they want it to be a particular difficulty, it will be, they'll just find the descriptor and modifiers that make it so.

Very much agree with this. I don't see the difference in play between the DM deciding "Oh, this is DC 15" and working through the relevant modifiers and getting to DC 15; or, I suppose, starting from the DC and working out the base descriptor and modifiers to get there.

Also, if the DM is running a published adventure, there's still a figure behind the curtain--it's just that in that case it's the writer/s of the adventure. In any event, it's not as though the wall you see before you (is this a wall I see before me?) is an objective thing with an objective difficulty: someone, at some point in time, has to decide how difficult it is to climb. Whether they're picking things off of tables to get the DC, or just picking a DC, it's not a dissimilar process.


IOW, I'm not saying 3.x is wrong for having that stuff. I am saying that 5e (and other games) aren't wrong for omitting them. Which, again, doesn't mean that you can't have your preferences, and dislike 5e for that reason. Literally nobody is saying that.

I got tired of 3.x for reasons not unrelated to this topic, but that's my preference and doesn't apply to anyone else's preference. People prefer different systems for different reasons (and sometimes the same person prefers different games at different times, or to do different things/tell different stories), and none of those opinions are wrong, really.

kyoryu
2020-05-06, 12:19 PM
Finally it does seem that what you presenting as normal skirts dangerously close to "roll and shout". If starting character needs to roll 10-or-above to climb a wall, and high-level character needs to roll 10-or-above to climb the wall - is it really necessary to have skills system?

Presumably, a more advanced character is climbing tougher walls and under more challenging circumstances. If they go back to a wall that was hard when they were wee, it should be significantly easier.

But, yeah, that's kind of the whole thing of the level treadmill, right?

Also, skills provide a level of differentiation between characters. Your argument is more of an argument against skill advancement than it is one against skills themselves.

Saint-Just
2020-05-06, 12:24 PM
Very much agree with this. I don't see the difference in play between the DM deciding "Oh, this is DC 15" and working through the relevant modifiers and getting to DC 15; or, I suppose, starting from the DC and working out the base descriptor and modifiers to get there.

Many DMs do not decide on DCs based on intended challenge, they place a wall (or whatever) that would make sense for the in-setting reasons and then they figure out what DC that would be according to the guidelines. Or maybe they even described the wall in general terms as scenery and then someone wants to climb it and they assign DC which would make sense for that wall regardless of how good that character in the wall-climbing.

I suppose it one of those things DMG calls tailored or status quo. Practically nobody runs 100% tailored or 100% status quo but you seem to imply that high amounts of status quo are at least very rare (if not badwrongfun).

kyoryu
2020-05-06, 12:31 PM
I suppose it one of those things DMG calls tailored or status quo. Practically nobody runs 100% tailored or 100% status quo but you seem to imply that high amounts of status quo are at least very rare (if not badwrongfun).

I think if a GM is making an arbitrary wall that isn't an intended obstacle strangely difficult to climb for no reason, then they are jerks and you shouldn't play with them.

So status quo walls should have reasonable, appropriate difficulties based on the terrain, etc. Specific challenges will be set to the difficulty they need to be, no matter how justification is done for that.

If a GM wants a wall to be hard to climb, they'll make it that way, if it's an intended challenge.

If the wall is just basically scenery, then a GM will likely assign an appropriate difficulty based on the terrain. If that's not exactly what you would have done (15 vs 10), then I really don't see the big deal.

If the GM is taking what should be a fairly trivial wall (DC 10 in your judgement) and turning it into a DC 25 wall for no reason? Then they're a jerk. Don't play with them.

(Also if the GM is calling for unnecessary rolls in no pressure situations, where nothing is at stake, then they need to work on their GMing skillz. Or they're a jerk and don't play with them. One of the two.)

EggKookoo
2020-05-06, 12:33 PM
Many DMs do not decide on DCs based on intended challenge, they place a wall (or whatever) that would make sense for the in-setting reasons and then they figure out what DC that would be according to the guidelines. Or maybe they even described the wall in general terms as scenery and then someone wants to climb it and they assign DC which would make sense for that wall regardless of how good that character in the wall-climbing.

I suppose it one of those things DMG calls tailored or status quo. Practically nobody runs 100% tailored or 100% status quo but you seem to imply that high amounts of status quo are at least very rare (if not badwrongfun).

I think this tailored vs. status-quo thing is largely an illusion. I mean if I'm understanding the terms right. Tailored meaning creating content to match party capabilities and status quo meaning the world exists as it is without concern for party abilities?

If so, yeah. If you make status quo content that is too easy or too hard, you'll end up with unhappy players. In general, of course. Some players may enjoy that. I suspect some may enjoy the novelty of it but not want it to describe an entire campaign. So regardless of how "status quo" you want your world to be, you end up tailoring it such that the players can have fun in it. There's no objective measure of that tailoring -- one set of players might enjoy a harder baseline than another set. But in the end, if you want to be successful as a DM and as a world-builder, you end up tailoring things whether you set out to or not.

The status quo thing really just backs it up a step. Instead of saying you put an obstacle in that you know your party has a certain chance of succeeding at, regardless of the in-fiction reason for it being there, you're saying you've created an in-fiction justification for a setting where most of the obstacles are such that your players will get satisfaction out of defeating or overcoming them. It boils down to the same thing. That wall's DC is X because X maximizes player fun.

prabe
2020-05-06, 12:34 PM
Many DMs do not decide on DCs based on intended challenge, they place a wall (or whatever) that would make sense for the in-setting reasons and then they figure out what DC that would be according to the guidelines. Or maybe they even described the wall in general terms as scenery and then someone wants to climb it and they assign DC which would make sense for that wall regardless of how good that character in the wall-climbing.

I suppose it one of those things DMG calls tailored or status quo. Practically nobody runs 100% tailored or 100% status quo but you seem to imply that high amounts of status quo are at least very rare (if not badwrongfun).

It's not badwrongfun at all. It's just there's still a figure behind the curtain. Most of the status-quo that I've seen has been in published adventures where there's a narrow range of expected levels, and expected bonuses, and has tended to be kinda treadmill-esque; that's not necessarily built-in, though. I don't see that there's a lot of difference between the DM deciding "This wall is DC 15 to climb" and deciding "This wall is [base and modifiers] and the DC is 15 because that's what that works out to." One requires math, but the other can still be done in good faith based on whatever description there is.

Saint-Just
2020-05-06, 12:37 PM
Very much agree with this. I don't see the difference in play between the DM deciding "Oh, this is DC 15" and working through the relevant modifiers and getting to DC 15; or, I suppose, starting from the DC and working out the base descriptor and modifiers to get there.

Many DMs do not decide on DCs based on intended challenge, they place a wall (or whatever) that would make sense for the in-setting reasons and then they figure out what DC that would be according to the guidelines. Or maybe they even described the wall in general terms as scenery and then someone wants to climb it and they assign DC which would make sense for that wall regardless of how good that character in the wall-climbing.

I suppose it one of those things DMG calls tailored or status quo. Practically nobody runs 100% tailored or 100% status quo but you seem to imply that high amounts of status quo are at least very rare (if not badwrongfun).


Presumably, a more advanced character is climbing tougher walls and under more challenging circumstances. If they go back to a wall that was hard when they were wee, it should be significantly easier.

But, yeah, that's kind of the whole thing of the level treadmill, right?

Also, skills provide a level of differentiation between characters. Your argument is more of an argument against skill advancement than it is one against skills themselves.

I initially wanted to write "skill ranks" instead of "skills" so you may be onto something

It makes no sense to me that even in a new location each and every wall (or even the overwhelming majority) would be tougher than in the previous location? Don't you people ever play in the cities?

Trees are even worse - human architecture varies (though I still would find it not very appropriate to assign really high DC to the residential buildings unless your cities are built from something concrete-like) but natural forests are supposed to be broadly similar. And if by level 12 your party only ever encounters deeply unnatural forests (and ones that is always harder to climb, not, say, a single mass of ancient trees with branches merging into each other which is easier to climb than the normal trees but because of how dense it is climbing also requires Escape Artist roll) than I don't know what to say.

prabe
2020-05-06, 12:40 PM
It makes no sense to me that even in a new location each and every wall (or even the overwhelming majority) would be tougher than in the previous location? Don't you people ever play in the cities?

Trees are even worse - human architecture varies (though I still would find it not very appropriate to assign really high DC to the residential buildings unless your cities are built from something concrete-like) but natural forests are supposed to be broadly similar. And if by level 12 your party only ever encounters deeply unnatural forests (and ones that is always harder to climb, not, say, a single mass of ancient trees with branches merging into each other which is easier to climb than the normal trees but because of how dense it is climbing also requires Escape Artist roll) than I don't know what to say.

And that is the treadmill of 3.x, which happened in other skills, too, and is much less of a thing in 5E.

Saint-Just
2020-05-06, 12:48 PM
I don't see that there's a lot of difference between the DM deciding "This wall is DC 15 to climb" and deciding "This wall is [base and modifiers] and the DC is 15 because that's what that works out to." One requires math, but the other can still be done in good faith based on whatever description there is.

The difference would be that thinking world-first does not consistently result in "Roll 10-or-above", it much more likely to produce other results (not only too easy but sometimes too hard). If the trees on the Dead Island of Death are supposed to be normal trees, only dead there is no way in hell they would be DC 25. Can DM place some weird obsidian trees there? Yes they can, but they unless they are thinking DC-first they likely would not want to.

kyoryu
2020-05-06, 01:07 PM
The difference would be that thinking world-first does not consistently result in "Roll 10-or-above", it much more likely to produce other results (not only too easy but sometimes too hard). If the trees on the Dead Island of Death are supposed to be normal trees, only dead there is no way in hell they would be DC 25. Can DM place some weird obsidian trees there? Yes they can, but they unless they are thinking DC-first they likely would not want to.

Realistically, if I'm a GM making the Dead Island of Death, I don't give a crap about random trees. If someone asks me how hard it is, in a random scene, I'll come up with something that makes general sense.

On the other hand, if part of the adventure is climbing the Grand Deathly Tree of Death Doom, then I'll probably have a DC in mind (or a bigger adventure).

As a GM, if I'm making those random trees DC 25 when there's really nothing important about them or that would logically make them harder, then I'm being a jerk. Maybe they're brittle and likely to break, so they're slightly tougher than a regular tree, but unreasonably high? That's not something I'd do. So if the quibble is 10 vs. 15, go with it. If it's 10 vs 25? The GM is being a jerk.

For the Grand Deathly Tree of Death Doom? I'll justify it how I need to, either in terms of description or mechanics. Go with it, it's supposed to be a challenge.

What, specifically, is the issue in this scenario that doesn't boil down to "jerk GM, don't play with them"?

Saint-Just
2020-05-06, 01:19 PM
Realistically, if I'm a GM making the Dead Island of Death, I don't give a crap about random trees. If someone asks me how hard it is, in a random scene, I'll come up with something that makes general sense.

On the other hand, if part of the adventure is climbing the Grand Deathly Tree of Death Doom, then I'll probably have a DC in mind (or a bigger adventure).

...

For the Grand Deathly Tree of Death Doom? I'll justify it how I need to, either in terms of description or mechanics. Go with it, it's supposed to be a challenge.


Well, at least for me what was trigger for all that discussion of tree climbing was Pex's Georg of the Jungle - Tarzan dichotomy where tree-climbing did not seem to be the focus of an adventure.

Zarrgon's examples (of trees) also imply escalating difficulty of everything and anything as a default, not looking at the world and asking what kind of trees\walls\locks whatever would make sense here (and I explicitly refuse to subscribe to belief that location used for a high-CR adventure would by default mean harder walls and harder locks and harder trees).

kyoryu
2020-05-06, 01:25 PM
Well, at least for me what was trigger for all that discussion of tree climbing was Pex's Georg of the Jungle - Tarzan dichotomy where tree-climbing did not seem to be the focus of an adventure.

Zarrgon's examples (of trees) also imply escalating difficulty of everything and anything as a default, not looking at the world and asking what kind of trees\walls\locks whatever would make sense here (and I explicitly refuse to subscribe to belief that location used for a high-CR adventure would by default mean harder walls and harder locks and harder trees).

I don't think that's necessarily accurate. "Scenery" trees don't necessarily scale. "Challenge" trees will.

I did not take the implication that "scenery" trees would scale as well as "challenge" trees, which is why I called out the difference in my example.

What, in my example, is the area of concern?

Unavenger
2020-05-06, 01:59 PM
And the game rules decide whether you reach the top of the hill or not. The hill is just defined as easy, medium, or hard, not with a given slope.

And which of those three it is - or any of the three other difficulties - is completely arbitrary.


They did. That's how it's presented in 3e. The 3e DMG says repeatedly that the DM is meant to conjure up DCs (10 to 20, or just go with 15 to make it easy on yourself), using the examples only as a guide. It also explicitly cuts the players out from not only participating in this decision, but in most cases from even being allowed to know it's happening. The only warning I saw in my 3e DMG about denying the players access to this aspect of the game is for the DM to watch out for player dissatisfaction.

Doesn't seem to have caused the cultural response they might have intended...

Well, apparently it did, because literally 100% of the 3.5/PF1 games I've played, the players and DM were both happy with the way the DCs were handled, and literally 0% of the 5e games I played did this happen.


Even under this scenario, they're not saying that. They're saying "we think this is a totally great ruleset. We've seen suggestions and examples be weaponized, and so at this point choose not to include them. In the future, when the 'suggestions are written law' mindset is less prevalent, we'll consider including them again."

I have seen literally nobody try to force a DC to be a specific number in 3.5. Given that I've played with so many different groups, I don't think that it's a real issue specific to 3.5.

On the other hand, I have seen people try to argue that a given task in 5e should be easier than the DC the DM gives them, and the DM doesn't even have the fallback of saying "Well, this is the task as it's described in the PHB, so that's the DC I'm using."

If people are using written DCs as a stick to beat the DM with, they're using the absence of those DCs as a gun to shoot him with, rob him blind, and kidnap his family.

Finally, as a DM, I want tools I can use in the game, rather than having to make it up on the spot.

You might as well not have spell descriptions because otherwise people will argue with their DM about, what, microwave flame strikes, was it? But I don't think just a list of vague spells will be any more helpful than listing skills and giving a brief overview of what they might possibly accomplish if you ask nicely and smile at your DM.

Bohandas
2020-05-06, 02:37 PM
Yup. That's what I said -- "the DM isn't very good". The DM's job is a long series of judgment calls, even when using an official adventure. The DM has abdicated his responsibility to give the best possible adventure if he just reads straight from the adventure without thinking it through -- as you have just shown.



I think that problem is that they expect some kind of standard or guidance to hang things on other than their own judgment.

Your problem isn't current D&D. Your problem in new DMs who are looking for the rules or the published adventure to supply the clarity and guidelines that are really their own ultimate responsibility.

These aren't "bad gaming experiences". They're annoyances.



Have you seen the 1973 movie The Three Musketeers starring Michael York?

D'Artagnan tries to catch his foe by swinging on a rope, and misses, eventually dropping into a mud puddle.
Porthos loses his weapon in the first melee four times.
Two villains are trying to stop Constance, and she turns, while holding onto the polearm one of them is using, knocking them both down.
Athos has won an individual fight, when his cloak gets caught in a watermill, pulling him off his feet and making him an easy target for his enemy, who picks his sword back up and wins.
D'Artagnan fights Rochefort, and uses the "secret move" his father taught him. It fails, and Rochefort stabs him in the side. [He wins that fight only because his servant hits Rochefort with a tree.]
D'Artagnan tries to throw a package up to a window, and it goes in the wrong window.
D'Artagnan leaps through a window and sees four guards standing on a carpet. So he does the heroic, swashbuckling move of pulling the carpet to trip them all -- and the carpet rips.


This is considered one of the best swashbucklers ever made.

The idea that the "expert" never flails around at what should be easy tasks is not supported by heroic stories in general -- and doesn't make a good game.

Yes, the dice are real. Yes, they will make you fail on many tasks. Yes, some tasks will be harder than they appear. Yes, other tasks will be easier than you expected. And yes, the DM's judgment call will sometimes be wildly wrong.

A hero isn't somebody who is never hampered by the perversity of the universe. A hero is somebody who overcomes all these obstacles and eventually wins anyway.

When your character fails to leap up onto the wall, he should laugh at himself and continue to fight, with a mocking smile at his own clumsiness.

I think that you'll find that that approach will impress the DM more than complaining about DC. You'll also discover that it's a lot more fun to play.


I haven't seen this movie but now I think I need to

kyoryu
2020-05-06, 02:39 PM
Well, apparently it did, because literally 100% of the 3.5/PF1 games I've played, the players and DM were both happy with the way the DCs were handled, and literally 0% of the 5e games I played did this happen.

Strangely, I play a game where not only are there no benchmarks, but by design there can't be any, and yet I don't have that problem.

It's almost like it's a preference based on the table and the individuals and not something where one is objectively better than the other.


I have seen literally nobody try to force a DC to be a specific number in 3.5. Given that I've played with so many different groups, I don't think that it's a real issue specific to 3.5.

I have seen people argue anything they can in crunch heavy games. It's almost like the argumentativeness is a character trait, rather than a byproduct of the game. Oh, wait, that's exactly what I've seen - the same people get just as argumentative and angry in high-crunch games as they do in fluffy rules light games, just about different things.


On the other hand, I have seen people try to argue that a given task in 5e should be easier than the DC the DM gives them, and the DM doesn't even have the fallback of saying "Well, this is the task as it's described in the PHB, so that's the DC I'm using."

I don't need that fallback. "Nah, the rock's too crumbly to really get a good grip on." I also don't consider it to be an antagonistic query, but rather a clarification. If somebody can't accept a reasonable difficulty because it's not exactly what they had in mind, I don't need to play with them.


If people are using written DCs as a stick to beat the DM with, they're using the absence of those DCs as a gun to shoot him with, rob him blind, and kidnap his family.

Indeed! Which is why I don't play with those people.


Finally, as a DM, I want tools I can use in the game, rather than having to make it up on the spot.

Given that I mostly play Fate where the skill levels are all mapped directly to adjectives, there's little to "make up." I find it preferable to map it on the spot based on the overall situation rather than having a list that is either not comprehensive or all, or overly fiddly with identifiers.

But that's me. Neither of us is right or wrong here.


You might as well not have spell descriptions because otherwise people will argue with their DM about, what, microwave flame strikes, was it? But I don't think just a list of vague spells will be any more helpful than listing skills and giving a brief overview of what they might possibly accomplish if you ask nicely and smile at your DM.

See, this isn't helpful. You're putting a completely pejorative spin on a style of gaming that works for a lot of people. It doesn't work for you. That's fine. But that doesn't make it objectively bad.

Willie the Duck
2020-05-06, 02:42 PM
And which of those three it is - or any of the three other difficulties - is completely arbitrary.

It is completely arbitrary regardless, as in the actual arbiter of the scenario places the challenge there regardless.

Pex
2020-05-06, 02:45 PM
Realistically, if I'm a GM making the Dead Island of Death, I don't give a crap about random trees. If someone asks me how hard it is, in a random scene, I'll come up with something that makes general sense.

On the other hand, if part of the adventure is climbing the Grand Deathly Tree of Death Doom, then I'll probably have a DC in mind (or a bigger adventure).

As a GM, if I'm making those random trees DC 25 when there's really nothing important about them or that would logically make them harder, then I'm being a jerk. Maybe they're brittle and likely to break, so they're slightly tougher than a regular tree, but unreasonably high? That's not something I'd do. So if the quibble is 10 vs. 15, go with it. If it's 10 vs 25? The GM is being a jerk.

For the Grand Deathly Tree of Death Doom? I'll justify it how I need to, either in terms of description or mechanics. Go with it, it's supposed to be a challenge.

What, specifically, is the issue in this scenario that doesn't boil down to "jerk GM, don't play with them"?

If there was a DC table that listed a number for climbing trees I have no problem whatsoever the Adventure Plot Tree has a more difficult DC to climb. That's a special tree.

Why is DC 25 being a jerk? What about 20? You say 15 is ok. What if someone thinks a tree is very easy to climb since a 4 year old can do it. He says DC 15 makes that DM a jerk. It should be DC Yes. No DM is being a jerk. They only disagree on the difficulty of climbing trees. That's what causes discrepancies between games and player expectations.

Zarrgon
2020-05-06, 07:12 PM
Finally it does seem that what you presenting as normal skirts dangerously close to "roll and shout". If starting character needs to roll 10-or-above to climb a wall, and high-level character needs to roll 10-or-above to climb the wall - is it really necessary to have skills system?

Roll and shout? Not sure what that is.

My game, and most games I've seen, everything in the world scales up with the adventures. When the characters are 10th level they are not encountering ''low" anything. A 10th level adventure is not fight the by the book goblin and his two giant rats.


Very much agree with this. I don't see the difference in play between the DM deciding "Oh, this is DC 15" and working through the relevant modifiers and getting to DC 15; or, I suppose, starting from the DC and working out the base descriptor and modifiers to get there.


This is why 5E got rid of the 3X skill mess system and just went right for "the DM sets the DC, and now back to playing the game".


I suppose it one of those things DMG calls tailored or status quo. Practically nobody runs 100% tailored or 100% status quo but you seem to imply that high amounts of status quo are at least very rare (if not badwrongfun).[/QUOTE]

Er, that is not tailored or status quo.

Tailored is where the castle guard is always +3 levels higher then the PCs. So at 1st level he is 4th level, and when the PCs are 10th level he is 14th. Everything in the world, illogically, gets more powerful based on the PCs. The idea here is the whole world revolves around the PCs and is kept in balance vs them. The PCs also can't encounter too powerful people and creatures as they don't exist.

Status Quo is where everything has a logical set power, completely independent from the PCs. No matter what level the PCs are, the castle guards are 7th level.

Neither has anything really to do with the fact that encounters always scale up with the PCs.




Zarrgon's examples (of trees) also imply escalating difficulty of everything and anything as a default, not looking at the world and asking what kind of trees\walls\locks whatever would make sense here (and I explicitly refuse to subscribe to belief that location used for a high-CR adventure would by default mean harder walls and harder locks and harder trees).

While the rules sure to say and support escalating difficulty of everything and anything as a default, this is a bit of the culture thing too. I guess you can run around the make sense circle, but it will depend what ''makes sense" to each person.

I guess you can say you disagree with the idea that high-CR adventures would have harder walls and harder locks and harder trees then low-CR adventures, but if you have ever read a couple of adventures you would find that is, in fact, the case.


Now, I should note the 3X vs 5E problem. See lots of people played 3X and were very used to the endless numbers mini game where DC's and skill totals skyrocketed.

But 5E is not that sort of game, they got rid of all the endless pluses and super high numbers. So a lot of the DC's in 5e should be what "looks low" (even more so looks low to 3x). Swimming vs a strong current in 5E is only 13, but for 3X it's 15 or 20. But then 3X also has tons of modifiers too. And in 5E your not dumping +20 into a swim skill. In 5E your unlikely to even have +10 to a check unless your really focused on it, have lots of magic help or over optimize way beyond the rules.

Xervous
2020-05-07, 12:56 PM
At the mention of “everything scales with the PCs” Zarrgon has me remembering good old Oblivion bandits kitted out in full glass (the highest rank generally accessible flavoring on the light armor gear treadmill). Do walls in his campaign grow more slippery if the PCs level up and linger in the same area? Or does a locale get discarded once the PCs have outleveled it?

The most immediate D&D related “everything scales with the players” popping to mind however? That’s 4e

kyoryu
2020-05-07, 03:42 PM
At the mention of “everything scales with the PCs” Zarrgon has me remembering good old Oblivion bandits kitted out in full glass (the highest rank generally accessible flavoring on the light armor gear treadmill). Do walls in his campaign grow more slippery if the PCs level up and linger in the same area? Or does a locale get discarded once the PCs have outleveled it?

The most immediate D&D related “everything scales with the players” popping to mind however? That’s 4e

Yeah, that's pretty horrible.

PCs will tend to face tougher things as they get higher level because they're dealing with more challenging scenarios. Locks in the mafia boss' house will tend to be better than those on the house of a street-level dealer.

NorthernPhoenix
2020-05-07, 03:48 PM
At the mention of “everything scales with the PCs” Zarrgon has me remembering good old Oblivion bandits kitted out in full glass (the highest rank generally accessible flavoring on the light armor gear treadmill). Do walls in his campaign grow more slippery if the PCs level up and linger in the same area? Or does a locale get discarded once the PCs have outleveled it?

The most immediate D&D related “everything scales with the players” popping to mind however? That’s 4e

That's sort of a false comparison. In Oblivion, literally the same thing scales upwards, while in 4e, you're just expected to handle tougher challenges. The game doesn't promote this, but if you, in 4e, go backwards and deliberately set out to fight generic goblins at level 18/30, you'll predictably demolish them. The only reason it might seem like things scale with the player is that the game encourages the DM to not have you fight goblins at level 18, unlike 5e which would very much like you to, in certain contexts.

Zarrgon
2020-05-07, 06:28 PM
Yeah, that's pretty horrible.

PCs will tend to face tougher things as they get higher level because they're dealing with more challenging scenarios. Locks in the mafia boss' house will tend to be better than those on the house of a street-level dealer.

This is what I'm saying. Sure the world is filled with super easy DC stuff always...but it really does not matter if the PCs don't go there.

5E has a whole section on how as the PCs level up and get more powerful the game world around them changes and has pages about how it's done in the game and all.

Pauly
2020-05-07, 08:07 PM
I haven't seen this movie but now I think I need to

The 1974 “The four musketeers” is equally good. Filmed together like LotR then finished and cut into 2 movies.
The screenplay was written by George MacDonald Fraser, of Flashman fame, and is easily the adaption that is closest in tone and feel to Dumas.

Man_Over_Game
2020-05-14, 05:57 PM
I feel part of the shift in focus is due to how tabletop games have changed in what they can uniquely provide.

Way back when, you didn't have videogames with as much horror or imagery as you do now. If I wanted something visceral and brutal while ripping the limbs off of demons, I can just pick up Doom for $20. If I want to hear an adventure about a group of heroes, LotR marathon it is.

Tabletop games take a lot of work, and people aren't going to do something that takes work when they can get the same thing easier from somewhere else.

But videogames and movies generally don't encourage social interactivity, and they don't have that truly open-world design. And as a result, more tabletop games are shifting away from combat and more towards the open-world-ness. That's what tabletops are able to uniquely provide right now.

I've noticed it in my own table. Most of them couldn't care all that much about combat, no matter how interesting it may be. They care about the storytelling and how much f***ery they can do to the local townsfolk.

Drascin
2020-05-15, 02:48 AM
Personally, a thing I've increasingly felt is that the whole "adversarial competitive challenge" thing in D&D always seemed kind of a weird culture-based tack-on born from con modules that didn't work. Because an RPG with a DM role and player roles, that are separate, and with the responsibilities each side has in a classic D&D system, is, by its very nature, kind of, well, bad at the whole "competitive challenge" business.

No, seriously!

Like, at every point in a D&D game, you are doing things because the DM wants you to do them. If the DM wanted you to not do a thing, he could absolutely stop you from doing it - he has absolute power to set the scenarios you run into, and your only real power is to get up and leave if the disagreement is hard enough. He can tell himself he's being "fair", and "objective", but no such thing as an objective human exists, just one who is not aware of his biases and the way they influence their rules. So the idea of "challenge" based conflict just doesn't work in a game where one of the sides is only limited by their sense of fair play and their own thoughts on what a "reasonable" and "logical" fantasy world looks like (which, importantly, does not at any point need to line up with the players' thoughts). As a DM of... christ, nearly seventeen years now, I quickly realized that most of the "clever gotchas" that some modules wanted the DM to feel smug about were just... basically a teacher failing a student for not reading his mind when answering the questions. "I have all the power, all the information, and decide all consequences. Your job is to guess what I (or the module writer, if I'm using a module verbatim) would think is a reasonable way to solve a problem."

You CAN make it work, but you can also hack Dark Heresy to play Pokémon - it doesn't mean it's what the system's setup leads to!

kyoryu
2020-05-15, 03:05 AM
Interestingly enough, Tomb of Horrors exists because a number of Gary's players told him that the game was too easy.

And he had players solo it, at surprisingly low levels.

Satinavian
2020-05-15, 03:39 AM
Interestingly enough, Tomb of Horrors exists because a number of Gary's players told him that the game was too easy.

And he had players solo it, at surprisingly low levels.
Yes, but there might be some element of familiarity with the DM in play. ToH is full of nasty surprises, but if you know what kind of stuff the author typically pulls, it can be significantly easier.

Quertus
2020-05-15, 06:44 AM
This thread has been awesome, but too… rich, too big, for me to properly respond to. This little nugget, however, seemed bite-sized:


Personally, a thing I've increasingly felt is that the whole "adversarial competitive challenge" thing in D&D always seemed kind of a weird culture-based tack-on born from con modules that didn't work. Because an RPG with a DM role and player roles, that are separate, and with the responsibilities each side has in a classic D&D system, is, by its very nature, kind of, well, bad at the whole "competitive challenge" business.

No, seriously!

Like, at every point in a D&D game, you are doing things because the DM wants you to do them. If the DM wanted you to not do a thing, he could absolutely stop you from doing it - he has absolute power to set the scenarios you run into, and your only real power is to get up and leave if the disagreement is hard enough. He can tell himself he's being "fair", and "objective", but no such thing as an objective human exists, just one who is not aware of his biases and the way they influence their rules. So the idea of "challenge" based conflict just doesn't work in a game where one of the sides is only limited by their sense of fair play and their own thoughts on what a "reasonable" and "logical" fantasy world looks like (which, importantly, does not at any point need to line up with the players' thoughts). As a DM of... christ, nearly seventeen years now, I quickly realized that most of the "clever gotchas" that some modules wanted the DM to feel smug about were just... basically a teacher failing a student for not reading his mind when answering the questions. "I have all the power, all the information, and decide all consequences. Your job is to guess what I (or the module writer, if I'm using a module verbatim) would think is a reasonable way to solve a problem."

OK, serious question here: if you are concerned about giving power to the GM limiting the game to the GM's sense of fair play, and running a module verbatim as the same, then what do you see as better?

Because here's what I see:

Running RAW / by the book, you are limited to what the game designers considered "realistic", but it's all published, and you can buy in by reading the rules before playing the game.

Running by published module is one step worse than by RAW, because it's just like running by RAW (or would be, if most module writers weren't terrible, and the quality their rules were anywhere near as good as those of the base system, rather than conflicting with the base system as bad as most novelists), except that, in theory, the players haven't read the module to buy in to the author's worldview. (If he has played with the group before, the GM can read the module, and use Knowledge: Players to attempt to ascertain whether or not a given module writer's insanity is anathema to his players or not, allowing "secondhand buy-in").

Running by "what the GM thinks is realistic" is then a step worse than that, as their rules aren't published at all, and requires you to build Knowledge: GM over the course of gameplay to decide whether you buy in and want to play with them.

Running by "each player carries their own reality with them, and is empowered to adjudicate all rules" simply takes the above issues, and multiplies them exponentially. So, if there was only a 10% chance of finding a sane GM (a high estimate, I know), the odds of a random group of 6 players only containing sane members falls to one in a million odds! That seems about the worst possible solution here.

So, from where I sit, a game where the GM creates the *scenarios*, but the *rules* adjudicate them (and the GM had no special powers with regards to rules interpretation) seems optimal.

What do you see?

Aotrs Commander
2020-05-15, 06:47 AM
My personal take on DCs (etc) and the rules providing with same as opposed to me making them up is purely mercenary. Why should I pay you, the ruler writer, money for something I'm have to do myself? If I'm arbitarily setting the difficulty on a case-by-case all the time (as opposed to just when I feel the baseline difficulty needs adjusting to circumstances), I can do that with frickin' HeroQuest (and have). I have the drive to write my own rules (and certainly to modify everyone else's without any hesitation and at extensive length if it takes my fancy (and it always does)); so you as rules-writer actually need to provide me with some structure to work from, else I'll just write my own or find another system that does.

(That's the price of having Bleakbane as DM; There Will Be Structure. I am not a DM for people that want an open-world/free form game and I freely admit that. What you get as Bleakbane as DM a stupid amount of prep-work put in on the mechanical (both in and out of universe), which is a double-edged sowrd for some people.)

(Aside from the usual of stealing some of it's ideas (as seen on some D&D pocasts/streams) - and I even did that with 4E - I have not given 5E a sideways glance.)

Willie the Duck
2020-05-15, 07:53 AM
Personally, a thing I've increasingly felt is that the whole "adversarial competitive challenge" thing in D&D always seemed kind of a weird culture-based tack-on born from con modules that didn't work. Because an RPG with a DM role and player roles, that are separate, and with the responsibilities each side has in a classic D&D system, is, by its very nature, kind of, well, bad at the whole "competitive challenge" business.

The con modules are definitely part of how the mystique of the adversarial DM-player relationship was born. There are definitely other things in the early rules that speak to the same mindset (thieves listen at doors so of course there are ear seekers, many cursed items which are 'kill your character. no resurrection' for no real reason ). The people around Gary at the time say that much of that is material spawned from a kind of good natured competition between Gary and his son Ernie and friend/collaborator Rob Kuntz, and were adversarial in a 'hah, gotcha this time!' kind of way rather than a hostile fashion. Not that that does anyone outside of Gary's inner circle any good.



Like, at every point in a D&D game, you are doing things because the DM wants you to do them. If the DM wanted you to not do a thing, he could absolutely stop you from doing it - he has absolute power to set the scenarios you run into, and your only real power is to get up and leave if the disagreement is hard enough. He can tell himself he's being "fair", and "objective", but no such thing as an objective human exists, just one who is not aware of his biases and the way they influence their rules.

Here is something I have noticed: Every D&D character is doing something utterly foolhardy. Even those not going into funhouse trap caverns full of creatures trying to kill them are usually doing something incredibly reckless that should not work ('I, an armed mercenary with powers dangerous enough to cause serious problems for them, am going to travel to a local lord and try to convince them to let me wander freely through their fiefdom to accomplish my goals. This should have had a 90% chance of me ending up chained up in a dungeon the first time, yet I've done it multiple times.'). On some level, players are taking cues from the DM as to this objectively insane idea is one you are supposed to just accept because if you don't the gaming session is over, while this other objectively insane idea is one upon which I the DM will judge your success or failure. It always comes down to understanding (hopefully a shared understanding) of where the agreed-upon breaks from common sense are, and where the 'oops, should have assumed that would be trapped' places are. This is especially true with in-game mysteries -- and I have seen a number of DMs who thought they were good at setting up fair-but-challenging mysteries and were very, very wrong (in either direction).


As a DM of... christ, nearly seventeen years now, I quickly realized that most of the "clever gotchas" that some modules wanted the DM to feel smug about were just... basically a teacher failing a student for not reading his mind when answering the questions. "I have all the power, all the information, and decide all consequences. Your job is to guess what I (or the module writer, if I'm using a module verbatim) would think is a reasonable way to solve a problem."

Just as a general rule, appeals to feeling smug are kind of the ruinous dross of our subculture. I have yet to meet the apex gamer that really should feel head and shoulders above their peers, nor am I convinced that there are slavering hordes of other gamers out there that are so clearly subpar (although of course we have all run into someone or another who hasn't been showing their best self at a given moment). It's vaguely amazing that, for all the stereotypes of 'nerds' having been picked on by others in high school, we are so good at being awful towards each other.



Interestingly enough, Tomb of Horrors exists because a number of Gary's players told him that the game was too easy.
And he had players solo it, at surprisingly low levels.

Well of course. It is the classic 'think like the DM, and you will win' dungeon. Also given that most of the traps are lethal (and this is before thief class was published, so you weren't finding the traps by having a good percentage), level didn't matter much.

kyoryu
2020-05-15, 10:02 AM
Yes, but there might be some element of familiarity with the DM in play. ToH is full of nasty surprises, but if you know what kind of stuff the author typically pulls, it can be significantly easier.


Well of course. It is the classic 'think like the DM, and you will win' dungeon. Also given that most of the traps are lethal (and this is before thief class was published, so you weren't finding the traps by having a good percentage), level didn't matter much.

Yes to both of these. The point wasn't "and therefore it's a fine dungeon!" It was more, "in the context, it wasn't really set up to be adversarial or a killer dungeon, even if it appears that way to people outside of that context."

The "killer-DM-ness" of Gary is overstated by people that weren't immersed in that culture. It's not necessary to D&D at all.


The con modules are definitely part of how the mystique of the adversarial DM-player relationship was born. There are definitely other things in the early rules that speak to the same mindset (thieves listen at doors, so of course there are ear seekers; many cursed items which are, 'kill your character, no resurrection' for no real reason; ). The people around Gary at the time say that much of that is material spawned from a kind of good natured competition between Gary and his son Ernie and friend/collaborator Rob Kuntz, and not were adversarial in a 'hah, gotcha this time!' kind of way rather than a hostile fashion. Not that that does anyone outside of Gary's inner circle any good.

Sure, and a lot of it spawned because of the way that Gary played D&D - an open table, where random people would come each session, go down into a dungeon, and come back up. That's what D&D evolved around.

Lethality meant something different too. Losing a character in a typical "modern" D&D game is like deleting your Skyrim save file. At Gary's table, it was more akin to losing a solidier in X-Com. Sure, it still stings, but it's a whole different context. The problem is that's not how most people play now, and that's not even how a lot of people played back then.

But con games were totally different, were meant to be something different, and didn't reflect the primary play style that the game was designed around. But because TSR needed to publish stuff, that's what got published, and so that became the template.


Here is something I have noticed: Every D&D character is doing something utterly foolhardy. Even those not going into funhouse trap caverns full of creatures trying to kill them are usually doing something incredibly reckless that should not work ('I, an armed mercenary with powers dangerous enough to cause serious problems for them, am going to travel to a local lord and try to convince them to let me wander freely through their fiefdom to accomplish my goals. This should have had a 90% chance of me ending up chained up in a dungeon the first time, yet I've done it multiple times.'). On some level, players are taking cues from the DM as to this objectively insane idea is one you are supposed to just accept because if you don't the gaming session is over, while this other objectively insane idea is one upon which I the DM will judge your success or failure. It always comes down to understanding (hopefully a shared understanding) of where the agreed-upon breaks from common sense are, and where the 'oops, should have assumed that would be trapped' places are. This is especially true with in-game mysteries -- and I have seen a number of DMs who thought they were good at setting up fair-but-challenging mysteries and were very, very wrong (in either direction).

In a lot of cases that's just because the setup isn't the point, the action is. Especially in more linear games, where the job of the GM includes "set up a series of encounters that are fair", by social contract the players are supposed to presume the encounters are fair, and not try to engage in too much risk management involving them. Of course, that also tends to go haywire for players that don't expect that particular implicit social contract :)


Just as a general rule, appeals to feeling smug are kind of the ruinous dross of our subculture. I have yet to meet the apex gamer that really should feel head and shoulders above their peers, nor am I convinced that there are slavering hordes of other gamers out there that are so clearly subpar (although of course we have all run into someone or another who hasn't been showing their best self at a given moment). It's vaguely amazing that, for all the stereotypes of 'nerds' having been picked on by others in high school, we are so good at being awful towards each other.

It's weird that of all the hobbies I am or have been involved in, roleplaying games, one of the most social of those hobbies, has the highest percentage of people with poor social skills - by far.

EggKookoo
2020-05-15, 11:10 AM
It's weird that of all the hobbies I am or have been involved in, roleplaying games, one of the most social of those hobbies, has the highest percentage of people with poor social skills - by far.

There's probably a connection. I'd bet you'll find plenty of poor social skill people among fishermen, scale model builders, and stamp collectors. But their hobbies don't force them to engage with other hobbyists socially in order to function. TTRPGs require you to flex your social-interaction muscles to participate. It's not surprising how it puts a spotlight on the underdeveloped.

On the other hand, physical sports probably also have a large contingent of the socially inept, but the hobby/sport depends less on that and more on physical performance, so it's hidden more. And we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking poor sportsmanship isn't a systemic issue there.

kyoryu
2020-05-15, 11:53 AM
There's probably a connection. I'd bet you'll find plenty of poor social skill people among fishermen, scale model builders, and stamp collectors. But their hobbies don't force them to engage with other hobbyists socially in order to function. TTRPGs require you to flex your social-interaction muscles to participate. It's not surprising how it puts a spotlight on the underdeveloped.

On the other hand, physical sports probably also have a large contingent of the socially inept, but the hobby/sport depends less on that and more on physical performance, so it's hidden more. And we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking poor sportsmanship isn't a systemic issue there.

I dunno, I played rec league hockey for years.

And, yeah, we had some folks that were just jackasses. But the percentage was pretty damn low. And there's a lot of social interaction in team sports - I mean, the whole point is that you're working together as a team.

I get the general "jocks are bad" bias in RPG circles - I've been on the receiving end of the reason a lot of that exists - but in this case that hasn't really matched my experience, at least with adults.

I'm just saying, in my experience and based on my sample pool, if you told me I had to go to dinner with a random person from the local RPG groups, or a random person from a local hockey rec league... I'd go with the hockey guy. Way better percentages.

(To be clear, also not saying that there aren't amazing people in the RPG hobby - there clearly are - or that there aren't jerks in other hobbies - there clearly are)



OK, serious question here: if you are concerned about giving power to the GM limiting the game to the GM's sense of fair play, and running a module verbatim as the same, then what do you see as better?

I think the answer is "don't look at roleplaying games as competitive or adversarial setups between the GM and the players."

I mean, look at Drascin's original statement:


Personally, a thing I've increasingly felt is that the whole "adversarial competitive challenge" thing in D&D always seemed kind of a weird culture-based tack-on born from con modules that didn't work. Because an RPG with a DM role and player roles, that are separate, and with the responsibilities each side has in a classic D&D system, is, by its very nature, kind of, well, bad at the whole "competitive challenge" business.

If the GM and players are not in a competitive, adversarial relationship, the power imbalance doesn't really matter.

EggKookoo
2020-05-15, 12:25 PM
I get the general "jocks are bad" bias in RPG circles - I've been on the receiving end of the reason a lot of that exists - but in this case that hasn't really matched my experience, at least with adults.

Just for the record, I'm not in the "jocks are bad" camp. More the "jocks are human" one.

kyoryu
2020-05-15, 12:31 PM
Just for the record, I'm not in the "jocks are bad" camp. More the "jocks are human" one.

Which they indeed are. High school jocks have a situation that’s fairly tailored to encourage ****ty behavior. I’m also more looking at adult behavior, so might be looking at a pretty different set.

Sorry if I misapplied that brush.