You Can, But You Really Can't [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

kyoryu

2024-05-21, 03:09 PM

(My experience is with 5e but this happens everywhere in most TTRPGs honestly)

I'd like to chime in that while, yes, this is often the product of passive-aggression or a hostile DM actively trying to railroad, it's probably even more common subconsciously. I catch myself doing some version of this all the time, and I like to think of myself as a generally Good Boy when it comes to DMing.

I call them Attrition Checks: because I (subconsciously) don't have faith in the basic premise, but I don't want to outright say "no," I just keep moving the goalposts until the player gives up. A single Acrobatics check to jump and grab onto something becomes an Athletics check to make the jump, followed by an Acrobatics check to catch the thing, followed by a CON save to maintain grip, followed by a Perception check to notice the crumbling stone or whatever...Thankfully, my players will almost always either make a roll so good that I can't wiggle my way out of it, or they'll use some other mechanic (spell, magic item, class ability) that unambiguously gives an advantage, or often they'll just react in a frustrated tone that makes me realize I'm standing in the way of a good idea.

Yeah, exactly.

The thing with repeated rolls is that:

1. "Roll until you fail" inevitably results in failure.
2. "Roll until you succeed" inevitably results in success.

In most cases I try to handle the actual goal with one roll. In cases where that's not possible, I prefer to set up either some kind of "hit points" for the goal or to be explicit about "you need n out of m rolls to succeed at this".

It's definitely one of the things where the "default" way of handling the situation can lead to inadvertently pushing towards a given result.

This Coastline Paradox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox)-style problem with adjudicating success exists for loads of TTRPGs (though the degree varies based on how ambiguous the system is). Having a human arbiter of the world, and thus a human determining what "success" looks like, you're going to have different levels of granularity between DMs. One DM might only require a single Persuasion check to carry an entire NPC conversation -- and a different DM might require an Insight, a Persuasion, an Investigation, and an Intimidation check for that exact same interaction. Is one more fair than the other? That depends on the type of game you want to play and how much of a good-faith effort the DM is making to translate your actions into mechanics. There's no clean solution to this.

A very good analogy.

The cleanest you can get is to basically what I said before - some kind of hp/progress clock/etc., collapse to a single roll when possible, or up front declare it will take a certain success-to-failure ratio.

The best guidepost I've found is to try to compare any unique requests by my players to already-existing mechanics. A player wants to make a "called shot" on a boss monster (like OP's dragon-grappling example)? If I think it's a thing their PC could feasibly do, I try to match the power levels with, say, Battlemaster Maneuvers or a monk's Martial Arts effects.

Right, it's a good way to start that calibration, and figure out what is/is not feasible, especially taking how situational the maneuver is (eg, if throwing dirt in peoples' faces worked as well as people want it to, then every fight would start with that)

Not giving them free and unlimited access to the features, of course -- but comparing it to that helps me a lot with this "Attrition Checks" thing. Example: A PC wants to spend their action achieving something that a 5th-level Battlemaster fighter could do on a failed enemy saving throw? It makes sense that would cost one action and be gated behind a single successful ability check...but requiring 2 or 3 checks is overkill. It's not that powerful an ability. Meanwhile, if a PC wants to get creative with spellcasting, magic items, or consumables, and their goal is to replicate a 5th-level spell, that's probably gonna be a bigger cost. Worth an action, some resources, and maybe 2 successful checks at least (with worse -- but not zero -- outcome if the checks fail).

I like the way you think. I'm also willing to lower the requirements if a maneuver is very situationally/environmentally dependent. Do that, figure out how you're going to adjudicate the whole thing, communicate that, and follow through on it.

Eh, honestly, by the description of the conversation, you (the OP) were 'are you sure?'d twice. And the second time was even an explicit 'you should not do this'. The GM could have been even more clear about their intent here, but I do not get 'you can do this' from that conversation. I get 'you shouldn't do this', 'I do it anyhow', 'guess what it doesn't do what you thought, and I warned you'.

Ehhhhh... I'm kind of an anti-fan of "are you sure?" In that case I'd rather either have the GM say how they're going to run it, or just say it's not viable, or just flat up say "yeah, I'm not going down that road, stick with things that have rules."

Its long been an issue with d&d not having any real stunt bonuses and pretty lousy guidance/examples. As GM I always try to remember to ask the why/goal of the action and default to 'yes but...' answers. It gets better in systems with dedicated stunting rules and explicit bonuses & guidance for them. Plus it should never add more than a single average difficulty roll to succeed. At best you should be able to adjucate the action with a normal sub-system in the game, like using the normal game grappling or disarming rolls for rope tricks on opponents.

Yeah. I think you can do multiple rolls, too, but it needs to not be "single success" or "single failure". Either some kind of progress tracking, or require a certain number of successes.

But yeah, I don't do stunts when playing d&d. The combat system is so nailed down, precise, and pure exception based, that it pushes gms towards eliminating them and wasting your turn through extra rolls that usually have near 50% fail rates.

Also a fair answer, just communicate it clearly.

Ionathus

2024-05-21, 03:13 PM

Eh, honestly, by the description of the conversation, you (the OP) were 'are you sure?'d twice. And the second time was even an explicit 'you should not do this'. The GM could have been even more clear about their intent here, but I do not get 'you can do this' from that conversation. I get 'you shouldn't do this', 'I do it anyhow', 'guess what it doesn't do what you thought, and I warned you'.

"Are you sure?" is a safeguard for when players have phenomenally misread a situation and are about to get themselves killed. It's for reminding players about the stakes and circumstances of a world that they don't know as well as the GM does. It's not a Seal of Disapproval that the GM breaks out every time a player makes a suboptimal (according to the GM) combat choice.

Me: I want to make sure it can't get away or strafe us.

GM: You should really just attack it.

A GM should never say something like this.

It's the GM's job to adjudicate the world and provide enough context for the players to make gameplay and story decisions. The GM tells the players what their PCs are literally capable of -- what they can and cannot do, gameplay-wise. But the GM should never tell players what they should or should not do.

If a GM doesn't think something is possible, they ought to say it outright. "The dragon is too big, powerful, and magical -- your grappling hook won't be able to pin it down." You're not telling the player that you think their choice is stupid or suboptimal or whatever -- you're telling them that their intention is clearly impossible in this world and their PC would know that, probably to a degree that the player hasn't internalized (likely because the GM did a bad job of describing but let's give GM the benefit of the doubt here, eh? :smallsmile:).

I mean, look, I get it. I've had players make some truly bonkers tactical decisions. I gave the fighter PC a magic item that lets her cast a single cantrip and she chose Produce Flame, and now she makes frequent use of it in combat. She already had a magical flying sword that she could make constant thrown attacks with, and she prefers Produce Flame. Does it bother me that the 12th-level fighter is spending her action on "one attack, +6 to hit, 3d8 fire damage" instead of "three attacks, +10 to hit, 2d6+7, plus 1d6 force damage"? You bet it does. But guess what? She's having fun. And that's the only thing that matters.

It's my job as GM to create an interesting world to challenge and engage the players. It's my job to clearly explain how that world works, and what the players should reasonably expect from their actions. It's none of my ****ing business what they choose to do with that information.

Edit: replies to some ninja comments

2. "Roll until you succeed" inevitably results in success.

This is probably even more widespread as a GM method of "cheating", but nobody complains because PC success often feels good and pushes the story forward -- especially for the types of checks that become "roll until you succeed" since those are usually annoying or fiddly with low stakes.

The only improvement you can really do is eliminate them, but they're pretty harmless even if you don't. Sometimes the goblin brain just wants to roll the math rocks before we progress the story :smallamused:

A very good analogy.

The cleanest you can get is to basically what I said before - some kind of hp/progress clock/etc., collapse to a single roll when possible, or up front declare it will take a certain success-to-failure ratio.

Thank you! I thought of the analogy right as I was typing and realized "oh wow, yeah that really fits the experience I've had." Fun to hear it resonated with others.

I really like your "progress clock" approach to this. I have envisioned challenges like that before -- a challenge that requires, say, 80 total "points" of "damage" for success, but the "damage" is a 1-for-1 ratio for Charisma checks or whatever. Like, you have to win over an angry crowd, and the Paladin's "I roll 24 for Persuasion" is obviously great, but even the Barbarian's "I roll 5 for Intimidation" makes tangible progress.

Have you had any experiences using that kind of progress clock or "hp" mechanic in game? I'd love to hear how it balances. Obviously I'm in 5e but I imagine it could translate.

(eg, if throwing dirt in peoples' faces worked as well as people want it to, then every fight would start with that)
Exactly. I'm thankful that my players don't try to take all of my "one time" rulings as new things they can just, like, do every time now. Though if I'm being honest, it's probably because once they've done something unique twice, I get excited and make a custom magic item that codifies their ability to do it :smallbiggrin: I really like making magic items.

I'd rather either have the GM say how they're going to run it,

This is another good point that I didn't mention in my own comment about this: you can often resolve this dissonance by explaining "you can stick a grappling hook in the dragon if your attack succeeds. Pinning it down completely won't be possible, however, if it takes off you can hang on (DC XYZ at the end of each round to maintain grip) and for as long as you do, it'll have 10' less of fly speed..." etc. etc.

The red flag for me was:
GM "Shouldn't you just attack it?"

Why is the GM telling/suggesting what you should do?

This guy clearly doesn't care about player agency or isn't experienced enough to guide players without railroading them.

As other people said, he (the GM) handled it poorly in all regards.

Excellently said. that "should" got my hackles up, too.

kyoryu

2024-05-21, 03:15 PM

How I would have handled it:

Let's assume I didn't want to just say "no" on principle, which is I think a valid response.

If the grappling just didn't make sense, then I'd just say "yeah, that won't work. Grappling hooks are really designed just to grab on edges, not really sink into scales. There's really no way that's going to find a grabhold."

If I felt it was reasonable for whatever reason, I'd ask what the goal was - hold the dragon down? Fly up with the dragon when it took off? What? Then I'd give the rolls required.... "Okay, it's gonna be a hit with an improvised weapon (or whatever) to get the hook on. You're strong enough to hold your weight up but when the dragon first takes off it's gonna be a big jolt so it's a DC <x> strength check to hold on. If the dragon notices and tries to fling you off, it'll be <rules stuff> to hold on from there.... however, until that happens, you can climb up at a rate of 20' per round (or whatever)."

Now the player knows what they can expect, and decide if it's worthwhile or not (or even argue against it).

Yes, that's kinda breaking the "multiple roll" thing, but I think it's reasonable in this case, maybe? It's mostly intended as an example of how I'd communicate this better.

Jason

2024-05-21, 03:15 PM

At my table it would run like this:

I wouldn't discourage the player. He can try this if he likes. I would give him some upfront information on what would be involved - it will take a full round to ready the rope, and his attack roll will be at a disadvantage if he wants to hook a wing rather than just bounce the grappling hook off of the dragon's side. Also, the hook would at best do damage as an improvised weapon: only 1d4.

If the dragon was hooked I wouldn't let it fly at all. I don't think it makes sense to be able to fly with a hook in one wing slowing it down.

If it wants to retreat, the dragon's best move at that point is to spend a claw attack to sever the rope (an easy roll considering that the rope is attached to the dragon and can't really dodge). With no tension on it the hook would then be thrown out of the wing as it starts flapping for the getaway.

A young Blue Dragon gets multi-attack, so the net effect of the grappling hook tactic has been for a player to spend a round readying it and another round doing minimal damage in exchange for the dragon having to spend one claw attack on the rope instead of any party members.

It might be a useful tactic in some situations, but it has obvious drawbacks compared to "just attack the dragon."

A canny party who wants to try it again would probably do things like get a specially made grappling hook designed to hook dragon wings to remove the disadvantage on their attack roll, and use a length of chain to prevent the rope from being so easily severed. If they go to the trouble of making those kinds of preparations then their next attempt would be correspondingly easier.

Pex

2024-05-21, 03:42 PM

Sorry this happened to you. I know I would be disappointed if a DM says I can't do a Cool Idea, but I do prefer being told no than be told to roll and fail anyway regardless of the roll. It appears the DM wanted the dragon to escape, and he would not allow anything to prevent it.

Here's an opposite scenario in the hopes of cheering you up. I'm playing a barbarian (with fighter & rogue multiclass). We're fighting a Red Dragon in the air. With the help of the druid she flies me up, and I jump onto the dragon's back. Straddling it with my legs and hanging on with one hand I'm rage hacking away at it with my long sword (magical, cold damage). I had to make Athletics checks every round, but with +17 (20 ST, Expertise) and Advantage I wasn't falling. Anyway, with the dragon down to its last hit points the DM had it run away by Plane Shifting. No way I was letting my kill escape. I asked the DM since I am on the dragon's back could I go with him? Even the Plane Shift spell says willing creatures can tag along, and I was willing. The DM said sure, and off to the Plane Of Fire I went. I killed the dragon on the Plane of Fire and waited for my party to rescue me, which was a fun adventure next game session.

Rynjin

2024-05-21, 04:09 PM

I can't speak for every system - but assuming you were playing 5e, this is where your DM screwed up. If they knew what you were trying to do ("I pull it back down") was impossible, then they shouldn't have called for a roll in the first place - DMG 237.

In this case the roll isn't impossible, just unlikely. It's an opposed roll so the opposing party can always roll low even if they're stronger.

Quick look says a Young Blue Dragon has a Strength of 21 (or +5). So if it rolled a 19 or 20 it would pass. Little suspicious that it did so, which is why I roll dice like this in the open, but definitely possible, and twice as likely as the OP rolling a 20.

And this is the second place they screwed up, above and beyond the screwup with the roll itself - making your choice to hang onto the rope not matter.

Agreed. They should have allowed OP to do what they intended and face the consequences (likely death by dragon) later.

King of Nowhere

2024-05-21, 04:18 PM

when i read the thread title, i was about to post that sometimes the dm is really putting up some realistic obstacles and it's the players that give up too easily, misunderstanding that as the dm really railroading them out. sometimes there are those kind of miscommunications between players.
but no, yours is a clear cut case.

mind you, some things were realistic. the dragon is a lot bigger and stronger than you are. you can't keep it still with a grappling hook, no more than your cat could keep you still. at best you could impose a mild penalty on its speed and get dragged alongside it

NichG

2024-05-21, 05:00 PM

Ehhhhh... I'm kind of an anti-fan of "are you sure?" In that case I'd rather either have the GM say how they're going to run it, or just say it's not viable, or just flat up say "yeah, I'm not going down that road, stick with things that have rules."

Sure, all of this is more airtight and direct - better approaches to be sure.

But I don't find the DM's approach in this example unreasonable enough to justify a rant or even really a complaint. The DM figured a hint would be sufficient, when it wasn't they explicitly said 'you shouldn't do this', which is the correct direction when a hint is missed even if the wording is bad. Given that the OP had been trying improvised stuff all night and kept having to be dissuaded, I can sympathize with the DM feeling e.g. 'will you just use the rules and stop trying stuff?'. And actually just saying that, while if I felt that way it's what I'd do, is kinda fraught in a way I can understand wanting to avoid.

From -10 to 10 on DMing competency, where 0 is completely mediocre but not particularly objectionable either, I'd put it at something like a 2. This is reasonable, average DM behavior to expect; not a horror story and not awesome enough to brag about either, but in a zone where as an unrelated person I wouldn't criticize unless the DM in particular is encountering problems they want to improve on. This is about what I'd expect from a DM running a tournament module, for example, or someone mostly in it for minis combat. Not necessarily a game I want to participate in, but not bad wrong fun.

I put the rating above 0 specifically because the DM escalated to a more explicit statement when they could have just let the player hang themselves on their own rope as other posters suggested (which I would put below zero except that the first 'are you sure' justifies it to mediocre)

Rynjin

2024-05-21, 05:22 PM

I put the rating above 0 specifically because the DM escalated to a more explicit statement when they could have just let the player hang themselves on their own rope as other posters suggested (which I would put below zero except that the first 'are you sure' justifies it to mediocre)

If you tell somebody three times that something is a bad idea, and at least once explicitly, there's only so much you can do as a GM.

NichG

2024-05-21, 06:01 PM

If you tell somebody three times that something is a bad idea, and at least once explicitly, there's only so much you can do as a GM.

Well for example, an 8+ would be a GM who never got into this situation because they established well in advance expectations around their game and made sure to either get players on board with their desired style or adjusted their style to their players.

But it's not like you can expect that all the time.

Keltest

2024-05-21, 06:04 PM

Well for example, an 8+ would be a GM who never got into this situation because they established well in advance expectations around their game and made sure to either get players on board with their desired style or adjusted their style to their players.

But it's not like you can expect that all the time.

When the player goes "yes, I have heard your warning and am going ahead with it anyway" I don't think its really the DM's responsibility at that point. They did their duty in establishing expectations.

NichG

2024-05-21, 07:01 PM

When the player goes "yes, I have heard your warning and am going ahead with it anyway" I don't think its really the DM's responsibility at that point. They did their duty in establishing expectations.

Yeah, the DM doing everything that's their responsibility adequately and nothing more is a 0 on a -10 to +10 scale. It's acceptable. The OP's DM was performing at what I'd call a +2 - no fault to them, but also nothing particularly remarkable. A DM using, say, Kyoryu's suggested strategies rather than the OP's DM would be like a +5 or +6. A DM who never finds themself in this situation because they proactively prevented it by careful selection of players, communication, adaptation of their game, etc can go higher - but thats beyond the level of context that the OP's story can really let us talk about.

Negative numbers mean the DM failed at something it was their duty to do. Positive numbers mean they did more than what's strictly required, to good effect. 0 is the computer DM who does exactly and only what they're required to do, no more, no less.

icefractal

2024-05-21, 08:30 PM

Eh, no, I don't call this a reasonable way for the GM to run it.

Saying "piercing body parts with an attack isn't something the game supports; would you want enemies nailing your feet to the ground?" would be reasonable.

Saying "yes, the hook pierced its wing, but it can flick that off with a single strength check and not even be slowed down" isn't very reasonable, and rolling secretly for the result makes it worse.

It creates a strong suspicion that the GM was fudging to have the dragon escape, and that kind of suspicion is bad for the game - GMs should strive to avoid it.

Phhase

2024-05-21, 10:42 PM

As someone who prides themselves on rewarding unorthodox play, tearing the grappling hook out of their wing membrane better have at least dealt a little damage.

Quertus

2024-05-22, 01:08 AM

I'm really not sure what I'd do if a player wanted to grapple-hook a Dragon's wing with the explicit stated intent of keeping it from escaping. See, if they just wanted to attach a grappling hook? No problem. There are or I can invent rules for that. If they then wanted to climb that rope / have someone else climb that rope, or send lightning through that "rope" made of copper, or even hang on when the dragon flies away? No problem. There are or I can invent rules for that.

But the stated intention? On a good day, I might tell them, "OK, take your grappling hook down to the interstate, throw it at a fast-moving tractor trailer, and try to make it stop." Pause for effect. Followed by "Is that really what you're trying to do?" / "Not gonna happen." / something similar, with the option for them to explain why they think this makes more sense than what I'm picturing.

Because, at least as I understand the request, I don't understand the request. It's not an action I can picture anyone suggesting outside "superhero physics". And I don't even play with superhero physics in superhero games!*

* The current superhero game I'm running, I'm trying to use "superhero physics" for the first time. It's not easy for me. Not quite the single most challenging thing I've ever done in a RPG, but it's definitely a stretch goal, with a side of, "players, please poke me to remind me to use superhero physics whenever I fail to do so".

Yeah, the DM doing everything that's their responsibility adequately and nothing more is a 0 on a -10 to +10 scale. It's acceptable. The OP's DM was performing at what I'd call a +2 - no fault to them, but also nothing particularly remarkable. A DM using, say, Kyoryu's suggested strategies rather than the OP's DM would be like a +5 or +6. A DM who never finds themself in this situation because they proactively prevented it by careful selection of players, communication, adaptation of their game, etc can go higher - but thats beyond the level of context that the OP's story can really let us talk about.

Negative numbers mean the DM failed at something it was their duty to do. Positive numbers mean they did more than what's strictly required, to good effect. 0 is the computer DM who does exactly and only what they're required to do, no more, no less.

Not that I fully agree with you in this thread, but I'm still curious how you'd rate my above thought process, and why. (cards on the table, largely but not exclusively in the hopes of unearthing the root cause behind why I disagree with some of what you've said in this thread, and also in the hopes of improving my own skills.)

The thing with repeated rolls is that:

1. "Roll until you fail" inevitably results in failure.
2. "Roll until you succeed" inevitably results in success.

In most cases I try to handle the actual goal with one roll. In cases where that's not possible, I prefer to set up either some kind of "hit points" for the goal or to be explicit about "you need n out of m rolls to succeed at this".

I prefer... hmmm...

1) The oldschool Thief "roll until you fail". The interesting part was the tension, the unknown of where you would fail. Or of the, "you've made it this far... press your luck, or turn back now?" level of strategy decisions. All really cool stuff.

2) For the series of rolls to determine the... narration, the narrative. Like, a failed the Gather Information check means a lack of intel about the target; the player chose to fix a steak when, unbeknownst to them, the target was a vegetarian, so they auto-fail (but the player could have chosen differently, even failing the Gather Info roll, and made a different choice and thereby successfully impressed the target via their Craft:Cooking, as planned). Or the Knowledge:Nature and Spot checks determine the DC for the Climb check (because not all trees are created equal). Or the result of the Knowledge: Engineering and Architecture check determines the DC of the Disable Device check. Or more complex series of rolls, especially in complex social situations or fighting puzzle monsters, to determine what you learn from each interaction, to provide the opportunity to perform constant course correction.

2b) for the results to determine the narration (cue Lego Batman "First try!"). Sometimes, even when it doesn't matter, it matters to the character's story just how many attempts it took.

3) When it really doesn't matter to anyone, "can we eventually pick the lock?".

"yeah, I'm not going down that road, stick with things that have rules."

"Are you sure?"

See, the equivalent to that comment is what flipped the switch in my head, and turned me from "games for fun" to "learns the rules, games the system", from "writes 'Wizard' on character sheet" to "studies rules, builds infinite crit fisher".

So, for GMs who ever consider taking that stance, I can only ask, "are you sure?". Figure out what mindset you want to see in your games, and encourage that, not Not!That. If you prefer munchkins and rules lawyers over creatives, then the answer is an enthusiastic, "yes, I'm sure!".

Just wanted to pass that warning along. Several of my GMs, including the one who flipped that switch, probably would have liked hearing that warning. (And I, even knowing that warning, fail it several ways wrt what I desire vs what my style encourages. Sigh.)

icefractal

2024-05-22, 01:41 AM

Telok

2024-05-22, 02:04 AM

Also a fair answer, just communicate it clearly.

Clarification is perhaps warranted. I don't gm d&d any more, I barely play it these days. I was tired of fighting the sit-n-poke padded hp bloat combat it instills in players and neither 4th nor 5th eds really did anything to change it. There's other stuff too but the d&d combat system makes me never do stunt type stuff in d&d combat.

NichG

2024-05-22, 02:32 AM

But the stated intention? On a good day, I might tell them, "OK, take your grappling hook down to the interstate, throw it at a fast-moving tractor trailer, and try to make it stop." Pause for effect. Followed by "Is that really what you're trying to do?" / "Not gonna happen." / something similar, with the option for them to explain why they think this makes more sense than what I'm picturing.

...

Not that I fully agree with you in this thread, but I'm still curious how you'd rate my above thought process, and why. (cards on the table, largely but not exclusively in the hopes of unearthing the root cause behind why I disagree with some of what you've said in this thread, and also in the hopes of improving my own skills.)

3 or 4 I guess? The reason why I'd rate it below Kyoryu's suggestions to me is, that's likely to lead to table debate (like, immediately, you got icefractal's 'but actually' as almost a knee jerk argument).

It's better than the OP's GM because it communicates an explanation. But it does so in a way that could be taken as 'the challenge here is convince me' which can bog down play or feel unfair when in the end you don't agree with whatever argument the player follows up with but don't convince them either. Whereas a direct 'my ruling is going to be that it will not work' is more brusque perhaps, but it's less ambiguous.

I'm holding constant here that the GM has 1. Already decided that this won't work (for whatever reason - realism, game balance, they feel the player has been holding up game, whatever - we don't really know from the OP) and 2. Wants the game to move on.

It's kind of fiddly because we don't know the why. Like, if this is D&D I would probably think internally something like - grappling is it's own, complex thing. Grappling with a reach weapon ... can you even do that with like a whip or something (turns out no)? To make this ruling in a way that doesn't make bad precedent -I'd have to stop game for 10 minutes and look stuff up, which sucks for everyone else at the table. Like why would you ever risk AoOs or take Improved Grapple or risk having a grapple turned on you or all of that stuff if you just have to tag someone with a grappling hook.

If that was my thought process but I said the realism argument, then that's an outright error - minus 1 or 2 or something like that.

Vahnavoi

2024-05-22, 02:52 AM

This a relatively common situation. There are multiple contributing elements to it. On the players' side, it's often caused by tripping on a platitude "in a roleplaying game, you can do anything you can imagine!", which is almost never true in a tabletop game. This is because game rules typically only define and suggest some actions as plausible, and many as impossible. This leads to various things on the game master's side:

1) since tabletop games are often games of asymmetric information, with the game master knowing more than the players, the game master has a different idea of how advantageous any given action is. This leads to temptation to give (often unsolicited) advice on how to play the game, as happens in the example case.

2) since tabletop games are often incomplete, it is possible the player's action falls in the area of possible but unregulated actions. This forces a game master to make a ruling, while other actions would not. This leads to temptation to direct a player away from their original selection and towards some action with codified rules. I'd argue this is at least as relevant to the example case as the first part.

3) since tabletop games often give a game master authority to dictate game events, game masters occasionally predestine certain outcomes even when it is unnecessary. In the example case, it is possible the game master had predestined the dragon to flee; this feeds back to the first point, since of course no tactic explicitly meant to prevent the dragon from fleeing can work in such a case. The (predetermined) victory condition for players may have been "deal enough damage to the dragon to make it flee". I'll note that the example case doesn't have enough detail to tell if this was actually the case, nevermind figuring out any justification for it.

The above three happen with experienced and inexperienced game masters alike. Arguably, they may even be more common with experienced game masters who are set in their ways - the flipside of system mastery is that you get used to things being done a certain way and can no longer relate to people who aren't acting in the "obviously advantageous" way.

However, the most common is this, with new players:

4) a new player has not actually correctly understood what the game rules or the game master are saying and is basing their actions on incorrect idea of the game situation. An example from my own games was a player imagining a "grappling hook" as a fancy gadget like Batman would use, rather than the mundane version of a hook attached to a rope. This lead to an unnecessarily complicated description of a player trying to shoot it out of a window. I had to stop them and point out: "it's a hook at the end of a rope. You can just affix it to the window frame and climb out, you don't have to shoot it anywhere". The internet tale of the "dread gazebo" is another example of this. Did this factor into the example case? Hard to say. Depends on how big and powerful the OP imagined a "Young Blue Dragon" to be, compared to their game master.

---

As for how I, personally, would've handled the example situation? I do not, as a game master, spend much effort on stopping actions that are merely inadvisable or require rulings (points 1 and 2 above). I'm mostly concerned with stopping actions that are result of miscommunication or players missing details I have already revealed them (point 4). So I wouldn't have opened with "shouldn't you attack it?", I would've prefaced likely failure with "the dragon is really big and strong, you might not be able to hold it". Quite often, though, I let players attempt things like this with no comment. After they've succeeded or failed, I may explain how likely (or not) the attempt was. The reason of doing analysis after the fact, rather than before the fact, is that I want players to make their own analysis and come to their own decision first. Only when they're stuck or when they don't have enough information to make a decision to begin with, do I strongly outline their options.

Psyren

2024-05-22, 03:10 AM

In this case the roll isn't impossible, just unlikely. It's an opposed roll so the opposing party can always roll low even if they're stronger.

The DM clearly wanted it to be impossible, which they're allowed to do before asking for a roll (again, at least in 5e, if this was 3.5 you'd have a point.) Even opposed checks first require the DM to determine possibility and call for a roll, which they should only do if the task is possible without being trivial (DMG 237). The DM here determined it should be impossible but called for a roll anyway, opening themselves up to the issue of the player getting a nat 20 and being told no, resulting in... well, this thread.

Quick look says a Young Blue Dragon has a Strength of 21 (or +5). So if it rolled a 19 or 20 it would pass. Little suspicious that it did so, which is why I roll dice like this in the open, but definitely possible, and twice as likely as the OP rolling a 20.

Not how it works. Even if the DM was using the exact unmodified statblock you found and running it exactly as printed, the DM still sets the parameters of the challenge to determine possibility before the dice are touched. For example, the PC could be close in strength/equal in strength to the dragon, or even stronger than the dragon, yet just not have the leverage to pull off the maneuver they want from their angle and position on the ground. Nothing in the statblock actually covers things like that; that's where the DM adjudication comes into play.

Agreed. They should have allowed OP to do what they intended and face the consequences (likely death by dragon) later.

Speaking personally I'd have a range of outcomes here that give the player agency. "Death by dragon" would be on the list, but also something like "you successfully delay the dragon for a couple of extra rounds but the grappling hook is coming free. It seems focused on escaping - if you and your allies want to take it down, now's your chance."

Rynjin

2024-05-22, 03:38 AM

Not how it works. Even if the DM was using the exact unmodified statblock you found and running it exactly as printed, the DM still sets the parameters of the challenge to determine possibility before the dice are touched. For example, the PC could be close in strength/equal in strength to the dragon, or even stronger than the dragon, yet just not have the leverage to pull off the maneuver they want from their angle and position on the ground. Nothing in the statblock actually covers things like that; that's where the DM adjudication comes into play.

In general yes, but in this specific example it looks like the parameters were just set to "both entities roll Strength, higher result wins". Like an arm wrestling contest or something. If OP's GM DID actually fudge the die, then I completely agree he should have just said "no" to the idea entirely as the somewhat better option.

Shooting down the idea is unsatisfying, but not nearly as damaging to trust.

Speaking personally I'd have a range of outcomes here that give the player agency. "Death by dragon" would be on the list, but also something like "you successfully delay the dragon for a couple of extra rounds but the grappling hook is coming free. It seems focused on escaping - if you and your allies want to take it down, now's your chance."

I'm not saying offscreen the guy but how I see this naturally playing out is:

1.) Dragon flies off.
--1a.) Dragon tries to shake OP loose.
2.) If 1a fails, dragon lands somewhere and tries to kill OP. Combat continues in Initiative.

There's a possibility that OP wins that encounter since the dragon is already injured, but it's probably more likely by the numbers that the dragon takes it. Though OP could also try to play defensive and wait for backup, run and hide, etc.

There's a wide range of outcomes there but **** is gonna get real hairy real fast once any monster strong enough to fight the whole party for several rounds and survive corners 1/4 of said party and takes him on alone.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-22, 04:05 AM

In this case the roll isn't impossible, just unlikely. It's an opposed roll so the opposing party can always roll low even if they're stronger.

Quick look says a Young Blue Dragon has a Strength of 21 (or +5). So if it rolled a 19 or 20 it would pass. Little suspicious that it did so, which is why I roll dice like this in the open, but definitely possible, and twice as likely as the OP rolling a 20.

Nah, it's still impossible, because "pull the dragon down" isn't a matter of opposed strength in the first place, it's a matter of your weight vs. the dragon's ability to lift you. A Young Blue Dragon is S21/Large which means it has an ordinary carry weight of 630lbs. You can hang on to the rope all you want but you're going with it. You need something heavier or more firmly attached to the ground than the dragon can pull free to anchor yourself to before pulling back makes a difference.

And that's what should have come out at the start of this whole deal, when the player asks to grappling hook the dragon. If the DM doesn't know why they ask why and when they hear "I want to pull it down" they say "It can lift your weight easily, still want to carry on or modify your plan to make it work?"

(If the whole party hung on to the rope so that it was over ordinary carry weight then you might turn it into a contest of strength because now the dragon is having to exert itself to lift the weight and actively pulling against it is going to have an effect).

That said the DM in this case seemed pretty attached to just having the player blandly attack and the dragon noping out no matter what, so none of that really matters. The tracks were there, no amount of rope and grappling hook were going to escape them.

Rynjin

2024-05-22, 05:51 AM

Nah. Rule of Cool says weight and leverage don't matter, Spider-Man can pull hard enough to stop the train.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-22, 05:58 AM

Nah. Rule of Cool says weight and leverage don't matter, Spider-Man can pull hard enough to stop the train.

Spider-Man has sticking to things powers.

Find a way to make weight and leverage do something cool (like tying your end of the rope to a handy immovable rod).

Catullus64

2024-05-22, 08:15 AM

2) since tabletop games are often incomplete, it is possible the player's action falls in the area of possible but unregulated actions. This forces a game master to make a ruling, while other actions would not. This leads to temptation to direct a player away from their original selection and towards some action with codified rules. I'd argue this is at least as relevant to the example case as the first part.

3) since tabletop games often give a game master authority to dictate game events, game masters occasionally predestine certain outcomes even when it is unnecessary. In the example case, it is possible the game master had predestined the dragon to flee; this feeds back to the first point, since of course no tactic explicitly meant to prevent the dragon from fleeing can work in such a case. The (predetermined) victory condition for players may have been "deal enough damage to the dragon to make it flee". I'll note that the example case doesn't have enough detail to tell if this was actually the case, nevermind figuring out any justification for it.

4) a new player has not actually correctly understood what the game rules or the game master are saying and is basing their actions on incorrect idea of the game situation. An example from my own games was a player imagining a "grappling hook" as a fancy gadget like Batman would use, rather than the mundane version of a hook attached to a rope. This lead to an unnecessarily complicated description of a player trying to shoot it out of a window. I had to stop them and point out: "it's a hook at the end of a rope. You can just affix it to the window frame and climb out, you don't have to shoot it anywhere". The internet tale of the "dread gazebo" is another example of this. Did this factor into the example case? Hard to say. Depends on how big and powerful the OP imagined a "Young Blue Dragon" to be, compared to their game master.

In my case in point, I think it was probably a mix of #2 and #3, and, if I am generous, #4. Since the DM was running from a module, and seemed on other occasions to get flustered when we tried the unexpected, my guess is that the module says "the dragons flies away when it reaches X Hit Points", and the guy felt he had to stick to that. (#3). Certainly there were other 'railroad signs', like finding a series of magic items that seemed to have been customized for fighting the dragon. It's also possible that, as others have suggested, he just didn't know how to handle a non-standard rules interaction (#2).

Perhaps I simply didn't understand what the Strength check was actually meant to accomplish; maybe I did succeed, and if I had rolled lower I would have been yanked off the ground and splatted against the canyon wall! Maybe the rope would have been torn from my grip and I would have lost my grappling hook.

I will also note an inconsistency: in a previous encounter, when I had my hands on a rope that was tied around a creature, this same GM said I needed to use an action to make a Strength check to forcibly move it. I didn't argue with the ruling at the time even though I didn't agree with it, but it now seems a bit hypocritical in light of the dragon, who simply took off and took the Dash action. Again, the incident with the dragon was just the final incident of a GM style that just generally left a bad taste in my mouth, that being the taste of railroad tracks.

Regarding the details of the action in this case, I do appreciate how some ruling is required for my proposed plan to work. I think it's quite reasonable that a dragon would be unable to take off from the ground with a 200 lb man in plate armor hanging hanging from a line stuck in the flesh of its wing, but the rules simply say that it can carry up to a certain weight with no impediment instead. I don't think those rules are actually reasonable to model this case. I also note with amusement that I simply could have grappled the dragon (a Large creature), and RAW it would have been unable to go anywhere without beating my check, so the rules are hardly a bastion of realism here.

Ionathus

2024-05-22, 08:55 AM

The above three happen with experienced and inexperienced game masters alike. Arguably, they may even be more common with experienced game masters who are set in their ways - the flipside of system mastery is that you get used to things being done a certain way and can no longer relate to people who aren't acting in the "obviously advantageous" way.

Hear, hear! People who are brand-new to D&D are in some ways the hardest to run for: not only because lack of experience, but because they haven't gotten used to (or resigned to? :smallwink:) my specific GM style. They have a cool idea and they want to do it, and even if I know in-context that there are better things they could be doing, they haven't internalized the mechanics -- they're just having fun being able to "do anything" in a ruleset that actually has a human arbiter to allow unique, emergent mechanics. They get swept up in the boundless possibilities.

Which, to be clear, is a plus for me. The fresh blood always comes into a fight with some wacky idea and it's always a joy to try making it work for them. But I won't deny that it's a real brain-breaker for me to run!

As for how I, personally, would've handled the example situation? I do not, as a game master, spend much effort on stopping actions that are merely inadvisable or require rulings (points 1 and 2 above). I'm mostly concerned with stopping actions that are result of miscommunication or players missing details I have already revealed them (point 4). So I wouldn't have opened with "shouldn't you attack it?", I would've prefaced likely failure with "the dragon is really big and strong, you might not be able to hold it". Quite often, though, I let players attempt things like this with no comment. After they've succeeded or failed, I may explain how likely (or not) the attempt was. The reason of doing analysis after the fact, rather than before the fact, is that I want players to make their own analysis and come to their own decision first. Only when they're stuck or when they don't have enough information to make a decision to begin with, do I strongly outline their options.

Don't have much to add aside from that I really like this whole paragraph.

I also note with amusement that I simply could have grappled the dragon (a Large creature), and RAW it would have been unable to go anywhere without beating my check, so the rules are hardly a bastion of realism here.

This is the kicker for me. There was a perfectly usable system in place here to achieve almost exactly what you were going for with RAW, and the DM ignored it.

Sure, it's technically on the PC to choose codified actions like "grapple" or "dodge". But any good GM should also be able to recognize when a PC's "unique" or "stunt" action is really just a RAW action disguised as something else. Your GM could've easily flavored your grappling hook attack as a grapple check and this whole thing would've been straightforward. But because it diverged a tiny bit from the actual codified rules, he (seemingly) made up his mind that it was impossible and sent you on a wild goose chase with checks he knew (consciously or not) were pointless.

Hell, even if you'd asked to add something to the grapple (e.g. using the rope lets you do it from 10' away, using the grappling hook imposes ongoing damage), I still think that the GM should've found a way to modify the RAW grappling rules to make it work. Impose an additional challenge and if you succeed, you get an additional effect on the grapple. This goes back to my point about using RAW abilities as "benchmarks" for any unusual interactions. If it's roughly equivalent to something else the PC could've done with their turn...why be that tight-fisted with the keys to reality? Why not just let them do the thing?

Jason

2024-05-22, 09:34 AM

Given that the OP had been trying improvised stuff all night and kept having to be dissuaded, I can sympathize with the DM feeling e.g. 'will you just use the rules and stop trying stuff?'. And actually just saying that, while if I felt that way it's what I'd do, is kinda fraught in a way I can understand wanting to avoid.
There is such a thing as over-improvising, but if you find yourself as GM saying "just use the rules and stop trying stuff" then I think you're missing one of the major reasons people play tabletop RPGs - because they can actually try stuff they couldn't do in, for example, a video game.

That's why my approach to this situation is "go ahead, but once you see the drawbacks to your approach you'll probably see why people don't use the idea very often."

Psyren

2024-05-22, 09:39 AM

In general yes, but in this specific example it looks like the parameters were just set to "both entities roll Strength, higher result wins".

But they weren't, because empirically, no roll from the PC would have succeeded. You physically cannot roll higher than a 20 on the die. There was no way for them to win, so there shouldn't have been a roll in the first place.

Nah. Rule of Cool says weight and leverage don't matter, Spider-Man can pull hard enough to stop the train.

The point is that whether they matter or not is up to the DM, not the number on whatever statblock you found. (And to reiterate, I think the DM in this case made a bad call - two in fact.)

GloatingSwine

2024-05-22, 09:54 AM

Sure, it's technically on the PC to choose codified actions like "grapple" or "dodge". But any good GM should also be able to recognize when a PC's "unique" or "stunt" action is really just a RAW action disguised as something else. Your GM could've easily flavored your grappling hook attack as a grapple check and this whole thing would've been straightforward. But because it diverged a tiny bit from the actual codified rules, he (seemingly) made up his mind that it was impossible and sent you on a wild goose chase with checks he knew (consciously or not) were pointless.

I'd still be minded to not have that work with a grappling hook, it doesn't really meaningfully restrain someone or something it's stuck in except by causing pain*. A Lasso, that's a different story. (Say 20' Ranged grapple using Dexterity in place of Strength, still allowing proficiency in Athletics and resisted in the usual way and subject to the usual size restrictions).

* Another way the DM could have used this to do something fun would be to have the hook tear through the wing membrane and have the dragon crash not too far off, changing the nature of the fight for a "second phase" especially if it ends up holed up somewhere it's hard to approach without taking breath attacks.

kyoryu

2024-05-22, 10:00 AM

Clarification is perhaps warranted. I don't gm d&d any more, I barely play it these days. I was tired of fighting the sit-n-poke padded hp bloat combat it instills in players and neither 4th nor 5th eds really did anything to change it. There's other stuff too but the d&d combat system makes me never do stunt type stuff in d&d combat.

I get it. I'm all in favor of it.

1) The oldschool Thief "roll until you fail". The interesting part was the tension, the unknown of where you would fail. Or of the, "you've made it this far... press your luck, or turn back now?" level of strategy decisions. All really cool stuff.

Which is fine! There's still ways to handle that within a single roll - like, the degree of failure is how far you get.

The problem with press your luck is that people are really really bad at combinatorial math, and almost always set up challenges that are, effectively, impossible without realizing it.

2) For the series of rolls to determine the... narration, the narrative. Like, a failed the Gather Information check means a lack of intel about the target; the player chose to fix a steak when, unbeknownst to them, the target was a vegetarian, so they auto-fail (but the player could have chosen differently, even failing the Gather Info roll, and made a different choice and thereby successfully impressed the target via their Craft:Cooking, as planned). Or the Knowledge:Nature and Spot checks determine the DC for the Climb check (because not all trees are created equal). Or the result of the Knowledge: Engineering and Architecture check determines the DC of the Disable Device check. Or more complex series of rolls, especially in complex social situations or fighting puzzle monsters, to determine what you learn from each interaction, to provide the opportunity to perform constant course correction.

Sure. And in cases where the rolls are inter-related but not sequential, that makes a lot of sense. That leans into the "succeed 3 of 5" or whatever threshold stuff, too.

I'm specifically arguing against sequential rolls where one success/failure will end the series.

"Are you sure?"

See, the equivalent to that comment is what flipped the switch in my head, and turned me from "games for fun" to "learns the rules, games the system", from "writes 'Wizard' on character sheet" to "studies rules, builds infinite crit fisher".

So, for GMs who ever consider taking that stance, I can only ask, "are you sure?". Figure out what mindset you want to see in your games, and encourage that, not Not!That. If you prefer munchkins and rules lawyers over creatives, then the answer is an enthusiastic, "yes, I'm sure!".

In almost every case, if you're asking that, it's because of a map misalignment. So don't just ask "are you sure?". Clarify the situation so everyone is on the same page. If someone says "I insult the King's parents!", they probably expect that it will rile the King up or somethign like that. They probably don't expect that the King will have the character immediately imprisoned. If you know that's what will happen, saying "are you sure?" doesn't solve that mismatch. Telling the player what their character would know - that that's a move that will end up with them getting captured or worse - corrects the alignment. "Okay, you can do that, but your character knows that insults of that sort are not taken lightly, and will likely cause the King to throw you in jail. You still going ahead with that?"

Just wanted to pass that warning along. Several of my GMs, including the one who flipped that switch, probably would have liked hearing that warning. (And I, even knowing that warning, fail it several ways wrt what I desire vs what my style encourages. Sigh.)

To be clear, I'm all in favor of creativity. To me, that's kinda the point of the game. But, if a GM isn't going to allow it? Just be up front about it. Much like linear games/railroading - I'm not into it, but I'm not going to BadWrongFun it. Just be honest about what you're doing so people can choose which games they want to be in.

Sure, all of this is more airtight and direct - better approaches to be sure.

But I don't find the DM's approach in this example unreasonable enough to justify a rant or even really a complaint. The DM figured a hint would be sufficient, when it wasn't they explicitly said 'you shouldn't do this', which is the correct direction when a hint is missed even if the wording is bad. Given that the OP had been trying improvised stuff all night and kept having to be dissuaded, I can sympathize with the DM feeling e.g. 'will you just use the rules and stop trying stuff?'. And actually just saying that, while if I felt that way it's what I'd do, is kinda fraught in a way I can understand wanting to avoid.

Yeah, it's not the worst misstep.

As I said above, my big issue with "are you sure?" is that it usually indicates a map mismatch, and without clarifying that map mismatch, asking the question doesn't do much.

I think the bigger thing is really what appeared to be pretending to roll, but dooming the action to failure. All of this combined is just breeding distrust. Yeah, sometimes saying "I'm not comfortable with x" is hard, but at least you're putting the cards on the table that should be there, and are aligning expectations, even if they're not the expectations someone would prefer.

From -10 to 10 on DMing competency, where 0 is completely mediocre but not particularly objectionable either, I'd put it at something like a 2. This is reasonable, average DM behavior to expect; not a horror story and not awesome enough to brag about either, but in a zone where as an unrelated person I wouldn't criticize unless the DM in particular is encountering problems they want to improve on. This is about what I'd expect from a DM running a tournament module, for example, or someone mostly in it for minis combat. Not necessarily a game I want to participate in, but not bad wrong fun.

I'd put it at a -2 or so, mostly due to what looked like fairly blatant fudging against the character.

Note that all of the responses I would have preferred boil down to "be honest about what you're doing". I think it's a good trait for GMs to have. (GMs should be honest, but NPCs don't have to be, of course).

Keltest

2024-05-22, 10:02 AM

I'd still be minded to not have that work with a grappling hook, it doesn't really meaningfully restrain someone or something it's stuck in except by causing pain*. A Lasso, that's a different story. (Say 20' Ranged grapple using Dexterity in place of Strength, still allowing proficiency in Athletics and resisted in the usual way and subject to the usual size restrictions).

* Another way the DM could have used this to do something fun would be to have the hook tear through the wing membrane and have the dragon crash not too far off, changing the nature of the fight for a "second phase" especially if it ends up holed up somewhere it's hard to approach without taking breath attacks.

Agreed. I wouldnt go so far as to say this is something that "obviously" wouldn't work, but you need something to anchor the dragon to, and a better anchor on the dragon than a spike stuck in the wing membrane to meaningfully restrain it.

I agree that the dragon crashing could be a consolation prize for the player at least succeeding on getting the thing on there, but I don't think the DM should necessarily reward a player for doing something pointless just because they convinced themselves that it "should" work even after the DM warned them off it.

Beelzebub1111

2024-05-22, 10:05 AM

If the GM couldn't logically think of a reason for you to hold down the dragon, he should have asked you something like "How much does your character weigh?" and when you answer say "The dragon weighs about 100 times that. Your character considers this before taking this action, what do you do?" and if you still wanted to, I'd probably say something like. "Okay, you drop your sword and shield and go into your pack for the grappling hook and rope" Any objections to this would be met with bringing up your actions last turn and how they did not involve a grappling hook and why would it and 10 pounds of hemp rope be anywhere but your pack? If you still wanted to do that on your next turn then by all means I'd let you hold on for dear life while the dragon takes off. I hope you had a ring of feather falling.

Basically your GM didn't work out why it wouldn't be a practical thing to do, he just said "That's not Practical" which lead to the miscommunication and your annoyance.

Dr.Samurai

2024-05-22, 10:08 AM

A fighter with 18 Strength can't wrangle a Large dragon? Damn... that sucks.

I don't see a problem with what the OP wanted to do. I agree with NichG to an extent; I am not inclined to go so easy on the DM. Yes, they were obviously not in favor of that attempt and OP chose to ignore that, but the DM could have communicated in a way that avoided that type of reaction. Both were at fault in my opinion.

But as far as using a grappling hook to prevent a dragon from flying away, why not? It's the size of a horse :smallamused:.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-22, 10:09 AM

Agreed. I wouldnt go so far as to say this is something that "obviously" wouldn't work, but you need something to anchor the dragon to, and a better anchor on the dragon than a spike stuck in the wing membrane to meaningfully restrain it.

I agree that the dragon crashing could be a consolation prize for the player at least succeeding on getting the thing on there, but I don't think the DM should necessarily reward a player for doing something pointless just because they convinced themselves that it "should" work even after the DM warned them off it.

Yeah, though the DM warning the player off it in this case would have needed the DM to clear up at the very start what the player's intended goal was and be open about it not working. The point to do that was when the grappling hook was mentioned, and the way to do it would be to say "You can't hold it down, it will fly off with your grappling hook and you as well if you want to hold on" not "Just click your attack button again I don't pay you to think".

Keltest

2024-05-22, 10:12 AM

But as far as using a grappling hook to prevent a dragon from flying away, why not? It's the size of a horse :smallamused:.

Physics, mostly. If a horse can run while carrying a person, it can run while dragging that person behind them on a rope too. Its not like the person is attached to anything besides the horse/dragon.

NichG

2024-05-22, 10:14 AM

There is such a thing as over-improvising, but if you find yourself as GM saying "just use the rules and stop trying stuff" then I think you're missing one of the major reasons people play tabletop RPGs - because they can actually try stuff they couldn't do in, for example, a video game.

That's why my approach to this situation is "go ahead, but once you see the drawbacks to your approach you'll probably see why people don't use the idea very often."

I'm separating 'GM styles I personally would like/dislike to play under' from 'appropriateness of handling the situation'. Someone wanting to run D&D as a boardgame is running a game I don't want to play in, but that doesn't make them an objectively bad GM or their preferred style badwrongfun. Tournament modules are a thing, and people are allowed to enjoy them even if you or I might not.

If I stumble into that kind of environment, rather than be offended by it's existence I can just leave. Or compromise and just play. And in the future perhaps ask more or different questions before joining a game.

And yeah, it's good GMing to recognize what things they need to advertise about their game so that people don't stumble in with expectations that won't be met. It's great when that happens! Same vein though, it's good player etiquette to know if there are things you won't like and either ask or warn the GM in advance. I have a few of those warnings I give whenever I play - the most severe probably being that I almost require GMs to homebrew if I'm going to retain interest in a game, that I almost always play characters who pick at the seams of reality, and that I'm very proactive with my own goals to the point that 'you have been tasked with X' sorts of things will just receive lip service if not outright sabotage. And I check in advance to make sure they're okay with running that, because I know those traits are higher load to GM for.

That's why I can sympathize with a GM who wants to run a low-key game and not deal with even 'should I let the grapple rules work through a rope?'. I probably wouldn't want to play in their game past a oneshot, but I don't consider it inherently wrong of them to want that and target it with how they choose to run, as long as they're not deceptive about it.

kyoryu

2024-05-22, 10:24 AM

A fighter with 18 Strength can't wrangle a Large dragon? Damn... that sucks.

It's not a question of "where he'd grip it". It's a simple question of weight ratios. A 170 pound man cannot hold down a two ton dragon!

That's why I can sympathize with a GM who wants to run a low-key game and not deal with even 'should I let the grapple rules work through a rope?'. I probably wouldn't want to play in their game past a oneshot, but I don't consider it inherently wrong of them to want that and target it with how they choose to run, as long as they're not deceptive about it.

Yeah, this. 100%.

Dr.Samurai

2024-05-22, 10:25 AM

Physics, mostly. If a horse can run while carrying a person, it can run while dragging that person behind them on a rope too. Its not like the person is attached to anything besides the horse/dragon.
Sure but you're not a dead weight. You're planting your feet on the ground and leaning back and down. With an 18 Strength, I can see it. Especially since the dragon needs that wing to fly in the first place, and you're attempting to immobilize it.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-22, 10:27 AM

Sure but you're not a dead weight. You're planting your feet on the ground and leaning back and down. With an 18 Strength, I can see it. Especially since the dragon needs that wing to fly in the first place, and you're attempting to immobilize it.

Yeah, but it can comfortably lift 2-3x your weight. Unless you've got something to anchor to if it goes up so do you.

Dr.Samurai

2024-05-22, 10:30 AM

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-22, 10:34 AM

Here's an opposite scenario in the hopes of cheering you up. I'm playing a barbarian (with fighter & rogue multiclass). We're fighting a Red Dragon in the air. With the help of the druid she flies me up, and I jump onto the dragon's back. Straddling it with my legs and hanging on with one hand I'm rage hacking away at it with my long sword (magical, cold damage). I had to make Athletics checks every round, but with +17 (20 ST, Expertise) and Advantage I wasn't falling. Anyway, with the dragon down to its last hit points the DM had it run away by Plane Shifting. No way I was letting my kill escape. I asked the DM since I am on the dragon's back could I go with him? Even the Plane Shift spell says willing creatures can tag along, and I was willing. The DM said sure, and off to the Plane Of Fire I went. I killed the dragon on the Plane of Fire and waited for my party to rescue me, which was a fun adventure next game session. Love it!

Sure, all of this is more airtight and direct - better approaches to be sure.

But I don't find the DM's approach in this example unreasonable enough to justify a rant or even really a complaint. Concur, and, the DM can determine that the Dragon has advantage on the STR check, that is right in Chapter 1 and in Chapter 7 of the PHB. And then see how it plays out.

If you tell somebody three times that something is a bad idea, and at least once explicitly, there's only so much you can do as a GM. Also true. But if they insist, let them experience the consequences of their stubbornness. That fall from 200' is one such experience for the character.

When the player goes "yes, I have heard your warning and am going ahead with it anyway" I don't think its really the DM's responsibility at that point. They did their duty in establishing expectations. Concur. Give 'em enough rope.

Physics, mostly. If a horse can run while carrying a person, it can run while dragging that person behind them on a rope too. Its not like the person is attached to anything besides the horse / dragon. Also true.

NichG

2024-05-22, 10:34 AM

Yeah, it's not the worst misstep.

As I said above, my big issue with "are you sure?" is that it usually indicates a map mismatch, and without clarifying that map mismatch, asking the question doesn't do much.

I think the bigger thing is really what appeared to be pretending to roll, but dooming the action to failure. All of this combined is just breeding distrust. Yeah, sometimes saying "I'm not comfortable with x" is hard, but at least you're putting the cards on the table that should be there, and are aligning expectations, even if they're not the expectations someone would prefer.

I'd put it at a -2 or so, mostly due to what looked like fairly blatant fudging against the character.

That's fair, asking for a strength check at all when the GM had already ruled it would fail was an outright error. 'The dragon flies off, the grapple pulls out of the wing, the dragon takes 1d3 damage from the improvised weapon' would have achieved more or less the same thing without the deception and been directly within the GM's remit. I guess I'd personally be willing to give a GM a pass for something like that, because I recognize situations where players will really forcefully insist that they should 'get a roll' for something that's stuck in their mind - like, if the analogy lands, playing strictly non-viable moves in a game of Go after endgame has fully settled in the hopes that the opponent makes an error and hands over the game. This had evidently been happening all night and GMs are human too, so I'd consider maintaining your cool against someone trying to push you into their own pace to be an above-average quality rather than one I will assume that the average GM must possess in order to take the seat.

It's easy to judge in a whiteroom situation with hours between posts what the best thing to have done would be (and even better when we learn to do that when things are not so easy), but at a game table, this kind of fudge, after as much as telling the player - twice - that it's not going to work? I'd personally give the GM the leeway to be imperfect here. If the GM fudged without the warning, that would have crossed a line for me, but with the warning this just reads as a clumsy recovery of a fumble (asking for the check). I guess I have to also say that personally, I don't take a position strictly against GM fudging (e.g. in the party's favor, or fudging details that have not been established), and that influences my rankings of these things. Deceptive fudging of the 'lets do an opposed roll, oh look he got a natural 20' though I am against, and this does qualify (modulo the warnings)

Jason

2024-05-22, 10:37 AM

I'm specifically arguing against sequential rolls where one success/failure will end the series.
That's also why the "everybody in the party make a stealth roll," approach doesn't work for me. That's usually just another way of saying "someone spots you." Or "everybody make a spot roll," which usually just means "someone in the party spots this."

In almost every case, if you're asking that, it's because of a map misalignment. So don't just ask "are you sure?". Clarify the situation so everyone is on the same page. If someone says "I insult the King's parents!", they probably expect that it will rile the King up or somethign like that. They probably don't expect that the King will have the character immediately imprisoned. If you know that's what will happen, saying "are you sure?" doesn't solve that mismatch. Telling the player what their character would know - that that's a move that will end up with them getting captured or worse - corrects the alignment. "Okay, you can do that, but your character knows that insults of that sort are not taken lightly, and will likely cause the King to throw you in jail. You still going ahead with that?"
Definitely a better approach.

I think we went over this on another thread. If your players are about to do something that shouldn't make sense to their characters, it's time for the GM to step out of character and give them what their characters would know about the situation and the likely consequences of their actions.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-22, 10:38 AM

Sure, but this approach to the game really means you shouldn't be grappling or shoving/knocking prone any Large creatures. Because physics. If we're appealing to physics, dragons either can't fly anyways, so the point is moot, or are so light that you can stop them from moving effortlessly with one hand.

If you grappled it up close though you can coherently say that you foul its wings and so it can't open them properly to fly away*. A grappling hook doesn't intuitively do that (but as I said above a lasso could so I'd allow that).

* Not all muscles are built equal. It's pretty easy to keep a croc or gator's jaws closed with human strength, opening them when it doesn't want to? Not happening.

Easy e

2024-05-22, 10:54 AM

This GM did nothing wrong per se. They ran the game the way they thought made sense and warned the players of potential consequences of their actions when those visions were not aligned. That is their part of the game.

Is it the way I would have run it? No. I personally love it when a player thinks beyond "I attack/I cast". However, I am not the GM. Surprise, not every GM runs things the same way, and those other ways aren't even bad; just different.

However, it is discussions like these that make the transition from player to DM very hard. They discourage folks from stretching themselves and trying on the role of DM. It is very easy to Monday Morning Quarterback it from here, but a lot harder to make the right call and the right play in the moment. It is especially hard when you are going to get guff for it.

Player, what constructive feedback did you give the DM about this later? Not in the moment, but after you had thought about it for a week?

GloatingSwine

2024-05-22, 11:00 AM

They ran the game the way they thought made sense and warned the players of potential consequences of their actions when those visions were not aligned.

If the report we have in the OP is accurate, my contention is that they didn't do that. "You should just attack instead" isn't "warning the player of potential consequences of their actions" because it isn't frank and open about the consequences of any actions.

The actual way I say this should have gone is that the very first response to "I want to sink my grappling hook into the dragon's wings so it can't fly away." should be "you won't be able to stop it flying away with a grappling hook" and letting the player choose what to do with that information. That actually tells the player what the consequences of the action will be.

ciopo

2024-05-22, 11:03 AM

This is the kicker for me. There was a perfectly usable system in place here to achieve almost exactly what you were going for with RAW, and the DM ignored it.

Sure, it's technically on the PC to choose codified actions like "grapple" or "dodge". But any good GM should also be able to recognize when a PC's "unique" or "stunt" action is really just a RAW action disguised as something else. Your GM could've easily flavored your grappling hook attack as a grapple check and this whole thing would've been straightforward. But because it diverged a tiny bit from the actual codified rules, he (seemingly) made up his mind that it was impossible and sent you on a wild goose chase with checks he knew (consciously or not) were pointless.

Hell, even if you'd asked to add something to the grapple (e.g. using the rope lets you do it from 10' away, using the grappling hook imposes ongoing damage), I still think that the GM should've found a way to modify the RAW grappling rules to make it work. Impose an additional challenge and if you succeed, you get an additional effect on the grapple. This goes back to my point about using RAW abilities as "benchmarks" for any unusual interactions. If it's roughly equivalent to something else the PC could've done with their turn...why be that tight-fisted with the keys to reality? Why not just let them do the thing?

Eh, I read it the opposite: the onus is on the player (that'd be me, I don't GM no more) interfacing using the existing rules. If a game isn't build around rule-of-cool narrative-driven, then making exceptions (such as the "kinda grapple but at range and without me being also grappled" of the opening post example) is a quick downward spiral to throwing the rules out altogether and just freeform word salad stuff (yes, I'm hyperboling).

Wanting to do a cool thing is all good and fun, but the slippery slope is there, and when the rulings are untethered from the rules, then you don't have a game anymore.

I'll put forward a fairly simple example from cyberpunk red: a turn is move+action, shooting with a ranged weapon is an action, and reloading weapons is also action. For coolness reason in the game I am in the GM ruled reloading is a move action, I say it's for coolness reason because it was an emergent ruling in a session, due to another player wanting to do (cool stuff) but still reload since they didn't need to move.

Me being munchkin me, I addressed out of session that this makes the game kinda static, because if it's a move action to reload, then I'd reload on any turn in which I wouldnt move. The ruling got reversed, but if it didn't I'd happily played along with the ruling, and switched to use weapons with a clip of 1 ammo (explosive ones at that), which are probably balanced around the assumption that to use them more than once in a fight, you'd have to use your turn to reload them between uses.

Looping back to grapplig hook at dragon: aside that I agree the GM could've should've said "no" or maybe "no, but if your intent is preventing him from leaving, you coukd try grappling?" As a fellow player if you'd have introduced the precedent that it's possbile to grapple at range at no condition imposed on myself? I wouldn't say I'd raise a fuss, but my mind for sure would go "ok, so in this game with this gm this is possible, how can I make use of this?"

Keep the cool things in the unstructured narrative time, is what I'm trying to say, because if you do coolthings in the more structured/codified parts of the game, then players like me will take that precedent and suddenly you reloading a pistol as a move action becomes me reloading a rocket launcher as a move action, rules are also safeguards for us players!

Dr.Samurai

2024-05-22, 11:12 AM

I think what rubs me the wrong way is the DM prescribing what the player should do. Something about that seems off.

NichG

2024-05-22, 11:17 AM

I think what rubs me the wrong way is the DM prescribing what the player should do. Something about that seems off.

Lets say that instead of the improvised action, after being told they should just attack, the OP had said 'fine, I drink a potion of Fly'. Do you feel from this example like the DM would have said 'no, you should just attack it'? If something like that happened, yeah, I'd say that's pretty bad.

Quertus

2024-05-22, 11:26 AM

I randomly lost part of this post, so apologies if I stop in mid sentence anywhere, or seem even less coherent than usual.

@Vahnavoi - Dude, you've been killing it lately! Kudos on the 4-point explanation, it very clearly lays out the primary causes of related incidents.

3 or 4 I guess? The reason why I'd rate it below Kyoryu's suggestions to me is, that's likely to lead to table debate (like, immediately, you got icefractal's 'but actually' as almost a knee jerk argument).

Hahaha - well, that answers one difference between us: "sparking a table debate" rates it an automatic "10" in my books. There's absolutely nothing better in an RPG than a good table debate. Most RPG sessions at best leave the fantasy world and its inhabitants in a better state; a table debate can leave this world and its inhabitants in a better state. 10/10, would highly recommend. :smallbiggrin:

Most birds couldn't fly with a weight attached to one wing, even if it's a weight they could carry in their talons. You're not hooking a moving semi-truck, you're screwing with the wheels of a stationary semi-truck so it won't be able to start moving.

Heck, I doubt I could run at anywhere near full speed if I had a small lawn gnome attached to one of my legs with a fish hook - hobble, more like.

Ah, that makes more sense than what I read. Being an ignoramus in the field of bird flight mechanics, I'd definitely have to punt this to the group to evaluate, with a side of "Dragon flight is magical - your physics may not apply the way you expect" with a reference back to tractor trailers.

Clarification is perhaps warranted. I don't gm d&d any more, I barely play it these days. I was tired of fighting the sit-n-poke padded hp bloat combat it instills in players and neither 4th nor 5th eds really did anything to change it. There's other stuff too but the d&d combat system makes me never do stunt type stuff in d&d combat.

I'm confused - wouldn't padded sumo combat be an optimal time to attempt stunts? :smallconfused:

That is, when every action is vital, I'd be disinclined to waste them; however, when my options are "chip some small percentage towards victory" vs "potentially change the landscape of the battlefield", suddenly it's a whole lot more appealing. There's a reason why BFC has such a good rep around here.

So why are your experiences and inclination the opposite of mine? :smallconfused:

I'm holding constant here that the GM has 1. Already decided that this won't work (for whatever reason - realism, game balance, they feel the player has been holding up game, whatever - we don't really know from the OP) and 2. Wants the game to move on.

Ah. I'm not making that assumption / taking that as a given / whatever. I think that explains why I disagree with some of what you said in this thread.

It's better than the OP's GM because it communicates an explanation. But it does so in a way that could be taken as 'the challenge here is convince me' which can bog down play or feel unfair when in the end you don't agree with whatever argument the player follows up with but don't convince them either. Whereas a direct 'my ruling is going to be that it will not work' is more brusque perhaps, but it's less ambiguous.

Here, OTOH, we seem to have a fundamental philosophical disagreement.

It is my belief that the primary role of the GM is communication, is making and keeping the game state in sync, in providing the interface between the game world and the players, in allowing the players to make reasonable decisions based on their characters' knowledge. (yes, that's all 1 thing)

This falls under that primary responsibility.

Now, sure, I've gamed with plenty of idiots, whose intuition betrayed them and/or couldn't grok concepts like the interaction between dragon weight and boat buoyancy, or human psychology and what you can tell about a customer who asks, "how much is this?", or between dragon wings and flight, or any number of other things. And I've been that idiot from time to time.

It is the GM's primary responsibility to catch these errors, and the table's responsibility to either explain things to the ignoramus, or at least to pull out the clue-by-fours and make sure that the ignoramus knows that they're an ignoramus, in the event that they are simply incapable of understanding the situation, no matter how many times and ways the group tries to beat it into their head.

ABSOLUTELY the tone of my comment is "convince me". We're in a potential desync situation here, we need to use our words and get back in sync.

And I take GMs who take the stance, "I'm an idiot, and I'm gonna do this thing wrong and nonsensical, and leave us in an irreconcilable game state desync" to deserve a very negative rating on their handling of such a situation. It erodes the fundamental ability of the player to meaningfully interact with the game environment, to take actions from the PoV of their character. [To reference another thread, it would be as if you were making Runes, one of which had an effect based on several factors including the magnetic properties of the metal / substance it was inscribed upon, you inscribed it in Tungsten, the GM didn't know the magnetic properties of Tungsten, didn't care, and made a random ruling on what the rune did based on their ignorant misunderstanding of Tungsten. Wouldn't that have ruined the coolness of experimenting with Runes for you? Didn't you say that the value of the Exploration (my word) of Runes required GM consistency?]

In what way do you view this differently than I do?

(I don't know if it comes across in the tone of my writing, but I'm actually shivering in excitement at the prospect I might learn something cool today.)

It's kind of fiddly because we don't know the why. Like, if this is D&D I would probably think internally something like - grappling is it's own, complex thing. Grappling with a reach weapon ... can you even do that with like a whip or something (turns out no)? To make this ruling in a way that doesn't make bad precedent -I'd have to stop game for 10 minutes and look stuff up, which sucks for everyone else at the table. Like why would you ever risk AoOs or take Improved Grapple or risk having a grapple turned on you or all of that stuff if you just have to tag someone with a grappling hook.

If that was my thought process but I said the realism argument, then that's an outright error - minus 1 or 2 or something like that.

I like the "bad precedent" comment, and have made and accepted such arguments many times in my gaming... career? tenure? what word goes here?

Still, a "grappling hook" is meant to perform a "ranged grapple" of sorts - that's kidna its only function ("You had ONE JOB!"), and it's right there in the name: Grappling Hook. :smallamused: I see this sparking an instantaneous (and silly!) table debate at many of my tables, where people propose universes in which grappling hooks can no longer stick to walls and such.

And how do thrown nets work? Do they use the grapple rules, modified, or their own subsystem?

But, yes, thinking one thing and saying another is bad. It just leads to people addressing what you said, then everyone getting upset at the desync between "that was a logical argument given what you said" and the irrational outcome.

There is such a thing as over-improvising, but if you find yourself as GM saying "just use the rules and stop trying stuff" then I think you're missing one of the major reasons people play tabletop RPGs - because they can actually try stuff they couldn't do in, for example, a video game.

That's why my approach to this situation is "go ahead, but once you see the drawbacks to your approach you'll probably see why people don't use the idea very often."

The existence of an "outside the box" is, indeed, the one big advantage RPGs have over some alternatives.

As for why ideas aren't used very often... well, some creative approaches - like smoke on bees - are common in some circles. So if the giant bees are established to just be bees, but bigger, I expect smoke to make them docile, and I expect undead not to suffer from smoke inhalation, and I expect the added undead and added strength from, say, contracting ursine lycanthropy to mean we can carry more honey back, and I expect the fact that we didn't need to kill the bees means we can turn this 1-shot windfall into a sweet, sticky goldmine of ongoing income. Even if the general rules for smoke mean that we won't use it very often in combat against normal monsters.

Since the DM was running from a module,

just generally left a bad taste in my mouth, that being the taste of railroad tracks.

Ah. Modules and Rails are often related. I lost a more detailed reply, but... IMO, you should make your peace with Rails before returning to the game. And maybe ask your GM to point out whenever you try to step outside the module's rails. It doesn't sound like your GM has the skills to improvise, and the best you can do is help them, both in following the rails, and telling them after the fact, if they weren't limited by the module, all the cool stuff that they could have done.

glass

2024-05-22, 11:43 AM

But the stated intention? On a good day, I might tell them, "OK, take your grappling hook down to the interstate, throw it at a fast-moving tractor trailer, and try to make it stop." Pause for effect. Followed by "Is that really what you're trying to do?" / "Not gonna happen." / something similar, with the option for them to explain why they think this makes more sense than what I'm picturing.
Icefractal already pointed out that this is dysanalogous, but I wanted to point out another issue: Stabbing such a vehicle with a sword or charging it with a lance would be similarly ineffectual at best, yet that is both expected and expected to be effective against the dragon (explicitly so in this case).

"Are you sure?" is a safeguard for when players have phenomenally misread a situation and are about to get themselves killed.Are you sure is utterly inadequate if the "players have phenomenally misread a situation and are about to get themselves killed". Because it does nothing to get to the bottom of how they have misread the situation, nor to better align their mental map with the GM's.

Physics, mostly. If a horse can run while carrying a person, it can run while dragging that person behind them on a rope too. Its not like the person is attached to anything besides the horse/dragon.I am pretty sure a horse cannot run with a grappling hook embedded in one of its legs!

All of which is beside the point. The GM gave a ruling that he could hold it down if the OP beat it on an opposed Strength check. Whether anyone in this thread thinks that is a good ruling it immaterial to what they did next: Either gave the impression of cheating on that roll (bad) or actually cheated on that roll (worse).

EDIT: In which thread did the properties of runes on tungsten come up? That sounds like a fun thread!

Dr.Samurai

2024-05-22, 12:10 PM

Lets say that instead of the improvised action, after being told they should just attack, the OP had said 'fine, I drink a potion of Fly'. Do you feel from this example like the DM would have said 'no, you should just attack it'? If something like that happened, yeah, I'd say that's pretty bad.
I don't think so. But "just attack" is sort of the obvious default action anyone can take against a monster, and in this case it feels like the player wanted to have a different type of impact, or do something more. Saying "just attack" is sort of cutting the player off, whereas articulating their thoughts better might have resulted in a different outcome, and at least a different understanding on behalf of the player.

For whatever reason, this reminded me of an occurrence years ago at work. Union was going on strike, so the evening handyman had to stay late to lock all the refuse rooms in the building. The manager told him to keep the porter on duty with him. These things always happen at the last second, so the call comes in at midnight that the union is striking. So the porter is getting changed to leave and the handyman tells him he has to stay. The porter asks why and the handyman says "If I have to stay, you have to stay". So the porter shrugged that off as a petty flippant comment, finished changing, and went home. He was suspended the next day.

The way we communicate things has an impact on how people respond to us. D&D is not so serious as the story I just relayed, but the DM is not really explaining anything by saying "you should just attack". Players rely on the DM to understand how the world works and to get even get an impression. I know that I can't hold a horse in place in real life just by grabbing it with one hand. But I can in D&D. I think the DM should clear up any mismatched expectations, instead of telling the player what to do instead.

kyoryu

2024-05-22, 12:14 PM

It's easy to judge in a whiteroom situation with hours between posts what the best thing to have done would be (and even better when we learn to do that when things are not so easy), but at a game table, this kind of fudge, after as much as telling the player - twice - that it's not going to work? I'd personally give the GM the leeway to be imperfect here. If the GM fudged without the warning, that would have crossed a line for me, but with the warning this just reads as a clumsy recovery of a fumble (asking for the check). I guess I have to also say that personally, I don't take a position strictly against GM fudging (e.g. in the party's favor, or fudging details that have not been established), and that influences my rankings of these things. Deceptive fudging of the 'lets do an opposed roll, oh look he got a natural 20' though I am against, and this does qualify (modulo the warnings)

Oh, yeah, for sure. As I said, a -2. A minor misstep, and certainly understandable. We get to make those.

I think we went over this on another thread. If your players are about to do something that shouldn't make sense to their characters, it's time for the GM to step out of character and give them what their characters would know about the situation and the likely consequences of their actions.

Yes, we did. And it's because it's an exceedingly common source of "horror stories".

Eh, I read it the opposite: the onus is on the player (that'd be me, I don't GM no more) interfacing using the existing rules. If a game isn't build around rule-of-cool narrative-driven, then making exceptions (such as the "kinda grapple but at range and without me being also grappled" of the opening post example) is a quick downward spiral to throwing the rules out altogether and just freeform word salad stuff (yes, I'm hyperboling).

That's a valid style. Be honest and up-front about it.

Keep the cool things in the unstructured narrative time, is what I'm trying to say, because if you do coolthings in the more structured/codified parts of the game, then players like me will take that precedent and suddenly you reloading a pistol as a move action becomes me reloading a rocket launcher as a move action, rules are also safeguards for us players!

I think any ruling like that should go under a certain amount of analysis. Basically:

1. How does this compare to baseline moves?
2. How does this compare to moves that require a resource expenditure?
3. How generally available is this?

So, generally, I feel like improvised moves should be one of:

1. Things that are generally weaker than generally available moves, but might be situationally useful (rare)
2. Things that are equivalent to other abilities that might be gated, but might be reasonable to give access to because of a situation (not in player control) that makes it viable.
3. Things that are more powerful than generally available actions, but are really tied to this unique scenario.

Here, OTOH, we seem to have a fundamental philosophical disagreement.

It is my belief that the primary role of the GM is communication, is making and keeping the game state in sync, in providing the interface between the game world and the players, in allowing the players to make reasonable decisions based on their characters' knowledge. (yes, that's all 1 thing)

This falls under that primary responsibility.

Yes, yes, yes. Since the GM has the authoritative understanding of the world and game (not necessarily the "correct" one, to be clear, I mean authoritative in more like a computer-sciencey way), it is a primary responsibility of theirs to ensure that everyone is in sync with them. This is one of the biggest soft skills a GM needs, and it requires that they deeply understand that not everybody is working with the same mental model as them, which often feels like a fairly advanced skill.

Still, a "grappling hook" is meant to perform a "ranged grapple" of sorts - that's kidna its only function ("You had ONE JOB!"), and it's right there in the name: Grappling Hook. :smallamused: I see this sparking an instantaneous (and silly!) table debate at many of my tables, where people propose universes in which grappling hooks can no longer stick to walls and such.

Nit: I don't think they generally do. They stick to ledges, as that gives something for them to "catch" on.

The existence of an "outside the box" is, indeed, the one big advantage RPGs have over some alternatives.

I generally agree, and play games that encourage that. However, I'm also not going to BadWrongFun not doing that.

As for why ideas aren't used very often... well, some creative approaches - like smoke on bees - are common in some circles. So if the giant bees are established to just be bees, but bigger, I expect smoke to make them docile, and I expect undead not to suffer from smoke inhalation, and I expect the added undead and added strength from, say, contracting ursine lycanthropy to mean we can carry more honey back, and I expect the fact that we didn't need to kill the bees means we can turn this 1-shot windfall into a sweet, sticky goldmine of ongoing income. Even if the general rules for smoke mean that we won't use it very often in combat against normal monsters.

And that's where as a GM I'd probably step in and say "guys, guys, no." I'd also come up with a reason not to, but I'm also very much Not About finding rules loopholes that break the game. If for no other reason than "if it's that easy, why doesn't everybody do it?"

I'm not saying I'm right, of course, and some people do want to play in those games. Which is why I think including the OOC conversation is an important part of it, even if I paper over it with an IC justification.

Ah. Modules and Rails are often related. I lost a more detailed reply, but... IMO, you should make your peace with Rails before returning to the game. And maybe ask your GM to point out whenever you try to step outside the module's rails. It doesn't sound like your GM has the skills to improvise, and the best you can do is help them, both in following the rails, and telling them after the fact, if they weren't limited by the module, all the cool stuff that they could have done.

100%. I'm not a rail fan, but modules inherently get a little linear, especially if it's a series of them. And that's fine (again, not my cuppa but no BadWrongFun), but I think it's important to clarify, OOC, the parameters of the game when it's clear there's a mismatch.

I can definitely handle a rails game easier if I've been told up front it's a rails game, as I can set my expectations.

Quertus

2024-05-22, 12:17 PM

Which is fine! There's still ways to handle that within a single roll - like, the degree of failure is how far you get.

Nice one. I hadn't considered that approach / implementation, so kudos! Removes the multi-roll building tension, but condenses the general "simulation" outcome into a single roll.

The problem with press your luck is that people are really really bad at combinatorial math, and almost always set up challenges that are, effectively, impossible without realizing it.

That sounds like a "teachable moment" to me. Or at least a good learning experience. Let someone play a Rogue long enough, and maybe they'll develop an intuitive understanding of such things.

Sure. And in cases where the rolls are inter-related but not sequential, that makes a lot of sense. That leans into the "succeed 3 of 5" or whatever threshold stuff, too.

I'm specifically arguing against sequential rolls where one success/failure will end the series.

Oh, sure. I was trying to present an alternative to "one bad roll ends the series", as a way to... both support your premise, and... help those whose inner Simulationist made them feel that all those rolls were somehow important and necessary? Sure, you can call for all those rolls, if you feel you need to, but it shouldn't necessarily be "one failure ends the series" - consider what impact (and what DC!) the roll should actually have.

The person who knows that not all trees are created equal will have an easier time, as will the guy who's just good at climbing. That simulates nicely. "No child who doesn't both understand the nature of trees and have Expert level of climbing gear and skill can ever climb a tree" doesn't.

But as far as using a grappling hook to prevent a dragon from flying away, why not? It's the size of a horse :smallamused:.

My reading comprehension has failed me yet again - I was picturing a much larger dragon (thus my reference to tractor trailers. Highly unlikely I'd make that particular mistake as GM, even running a module, but still makes me feel silly. :smallredface:

Then again, dragons are fast, so maybe the momentum wasn't as far off is it sounds when the dragon's being compared to a horse.

Physics, mostly. If a horse can run while carrying a person, it can run while dragging that person behind them on a rope too. Its not like the person is attached to anything besides the horse/dragon.

Yeah, a video clip from a movie where a guy is dragged behind a horse is probably a better visual to use as a conversation starter than my "tractor trailer". You just don't see movies where a guy is tied to a horse, and his weight makes the horse stop moving. :smallamused:

OTOH, ropes and nets are good for breaking horses' legs. Using that as part of the stated intent would get further with me as GM than the guy being dragged behind a horse trying to use his muscles.

Icefractal already pointed out that this is dysanalogous, but I wanted to point out another issue: Stabbing such a vehicle with a sword or charging it with a lance would be similarly ineffectual at best, yet that is both expected and expected to be effective against the dragon (explicitly so in this case).

Stabbing a tank, maybe, but my car seems pretty vulnerable to being stabbed, or to the driver being impaled through the windshield with a lance.

Still, there's definitely creatures - like, say, Iron Golems - that I wouldn't normally consider stabbing without having a magical weapon, for similar reasons of "this doesn't seem like it should do anything".

NichG

2024-05-22, 12:39 PM

Hahaha - well, that answers one difference between us: "sparking a table debate" rates it an automatic "10" in my books. There's absolutely nothing better in an RPG than a good table debate. Most RPG sessions at best leave the fantasy world and its inhabitants in a better state; a table debate can leave this world and its inhabitants in a better state. 10/10, would highly recommend. :smallbiggrin:

I mean I agree that the +7 to +10 range can include (positively) life-changing gaming. I don't actually think randomly dropping into table debate is the vehicle that gets you there consistently though. It's not always inappropriate or unhelpful, but I do think often its a mistake because momentum and spotlight balancing are important in higher quality GM-ing, and table debate at the very least breaks the momentum and, especially in a 'I think my action should work' case, centers things on that one player rather than on the group.

On the matter of the high numbers, +8 on that scale is for the best/most impactful GM-ing I've ever personally experienced (a GM for whose game we drove 6 hours weekly and stayed overnight for a year or two). +9 is like, I can imagine this is theoretically possible, sort of like looking at the stuff Olympic athletes do. +10 is, I acknowledge there are things my imagination is insufficient to apprehend, but may still be possible.

Here, OTOH, we seem to have a fundamental philosophical disagreement.

It is my belief that the primary role of the GM is communication, is making and keeping the game state in sync, in providing the interface between the game world and the players, in allowing the players to make reasonable decisions based on their characters' knowledge. (yes, that's all 1 thing)

This falls under that primary responsibility.

Now, sure, I've gamed with plenty of idiots, whose intuition betrayed them and/or couldn't grok concepts like the interaction between dragon weight and boat buoyancy, or human psychology and what you can tell about a customer who asks, "how much is this?", or between dragon wings and flight, or any number of other things. And I've been that idiot from time to time.

It is the GM's primary responsibility to catch these errors, and the table's responsibility to either explain things to the ignoramus, or at least to pull out the clue-by-fours and make sure that the ignoramus knows that they're an ignoramus, in the event that they are simply incapable of understanding the situation, no matter how many times and ways the group tries to beat it into their head.

ABSOLUTELY the tone of my comment is "convince me". We're in a potential desync situation here, we need to use our words and get back in sync.

See this I think starts from a good place, but then it kind of follows a path to what I'd consider an error. Yes, communication is the job. But that's communication, *not* persuasion. And while teaching can be good, sometimes its unwelcome or even outright inappropriate.

Like, this is how alignment and morality systems lead to toxic group behaviors. The system tells the GM 'your job is to adjudicate shifts in this number according to this rubric' which, okay fine. But the number is labelled 'good' or 'evil' for example. So the player does something they think is good - they see a merchant sell some slaves, so they go and kill them. The rubric says 'murder moves you 1 point towards evil' and in that setting, in that fantasy society, that was murder. The GM applies the rubric. If we take the table debate approach here, this puts the GM in the position of having to argue, OOC, that killing slavers is evil because the setting is built around that conceit, and from there its easy to slip into 'so what, you're calling me (the player) evil because I think that was a good act?!'.

Sure you could think oh, I can teach a thing about two wrongs not making a right and how murder is murder even if you kill a bad person and ... That's a terrible mistake to do in the context of a game where the players haven't consented to be taught in that way.

What you should do is just play games without alignment *cough*. I mean, one thing you could do instead is say, 'this is a game mechanic; in setting, some gods get to judge events, and this is how they judged; if you disagree, take it up with them in-character'.

And I take GMs who take the stance, "I'm an idiot, and I'm gonna do this thing wrong and nonsensical, and leave us in an irreconcilable game state desync" to deserve a very negative rating on their handling of such a situation. It erodes the fundamental ability of the player to meaningfully interact with the game environment, to take actions from the PoV of their character. [To reference another thread, it would be as if you were making Runes, one of which had an effect based on several factors including the magnetic properties of the metal / substance it was inscribed upon, you inscribed it in Tungsten, the GM didn't know the magnetic properties of Tungsten, didn't care, and made a random ruling on what the rune did based on their ignorant misunderstanding of Tungsten. Wouldn't that have ruined the coolness of experimenting with Runes for you? Didn't you say that the value of the Exploration (my word) of Runes required GM consistency?]

In what way do you view this differently than I do?

There's a time and a place, and being careful of those is going to be important for the plus side of things. A simple and really powerful move is to say 'lets talk about this after game' when there are larger things that need to be untangled.

For something like the OP's situation, the way I'd handle it if trying to run 'normal' D&D would probably be to say something like: 'If you do that action, I'm going to run it as an attack with an improvised ranged weapon the size of the grapple head, so you might do 1d4 bashing damage or something if you hit AC but the grapple will just bounce off; if you crit and confirm then its piercing and the hook will be latched in, but the dragon can dislodge it with a Move action at the cost of taking the attack damage again; for what you're trying to do, the appropriate weapon would be a net; and a net doesn't grapple, it entangles and permits an unopposed strength check to just break out, just so you know for the future.' I'm not trying to argue that its physically realistic (mistake IMO), I'm not trying to enter into a debate with the player about what the best possible way to run this would be (because that loses the momentum of the fight and takes spotlight from others). However I *am* trying to communicate clearly how I will run things if the player goes ahead with the action, keeping in mind their intent.

If the player wants to discuss alternate approaches, that's fine - its the gameplay. If the player wants to argue 'no, you should run it my way', then 'for now I'm running it this way, lets talk after game if this is really important to you'. That talk may not be a physics debate. More likely than not, its going to be me explaining similar things to what I'm saying now, that in a fight situation momentum of play is important, abstraction is to be expected, my priority is to make good enough rulings and move things forward rather than spend an hour figuring out how to model penetrating wounds in D&D, and that things like increasing the resolution of the combat model are what I use the time between campaigns for rather than the time at the table - they're welcome to pitch the idea that next we play a hyper-realistic system, and even help me design it.

And like, if after saying the offhand thing about how a Net is the appropriate weapon in bog-standard D&D the player responded with 'well actually, with a net you can also hold something in place with an opposed strength check' I'd say 'that may be so, but you don't have a net, lets move on' and not get into a rules debate about whether e.g. the opposed strength check could be bypassed by making the break DC of the rope in the hypothetical that this was a net instead of a grapple. That would definitely be a player trying to detach from the fight and just debate rules, and that's unfair to the other players.

Now if I were running a more high-powered, super-hero/demigod/wuxia/action movie kind of game (which honestly is actually closer to my normal), I'd probably just let the OP's thing work but fix the problems in my narration. E.g. no, piercing the wing with a grapple and then expecting to hold the dragon is nonsense but I don't need to give a physics lecture about that, instead its just "Okay, you hurl the grapple with such force it not only punctures the wing, but wraps around the dragon's body and ends up getting lodged against their horns! Oh by the way, the free end is receding fast as the dragon thrashes - you could grab it, I'll let that go as a non-action, but you probably need to secure it to yourself in a way that isn't going to be so easy to get free of - want to tie your fate together with it?". Essentially 'yes,but', because it keeps the action fluid and narrative, not because its necessarily physically the most correct thing. Zany stuff just works, but I get to throw in complications, and you can accept or reject and we move on.

So, in the case of the runes magic system, there's a signal there which is absent in the OP's case. Namely, if I put a system like that in front of a player, I'm actually saying 'the gameplay here is playing a magical engineer'. I'm *explicitly inviting* that. Hopefully I would only do that if the players as a group were interested, but that's a failing I know about myself - I would totally put that in there even if its only going to appeal to one player. So practically speaking, what I should do is again 'lets talk after game and hash out the details then, so other people don't sit here for 2 hours while we nerd out about magical physics'. Would I do that? Ehh, I never claimed to be a +10 GM... I'd probably mess this up more often than I should.

Still, a "grappling hook" is meant to perform a "ranged grapple" of sorts - that's kidna its only function ("You had ONE JOB!"), and it's right there in the name: Grappling Hook. :smallamused: I see this sparking an instantaneous (and silly!) table debate at many of my tables, where people propose universes in which grappling hooks can no longer stick to walls and such.

And how do thrown nets work? Do they use the grapple rules, modified, or their own subsystem?

Nets are a thing at least in 3.5e, and the rules for nets make it pretty clear that a grapple isn't going to do very much... You have a 10ft range max, you have bad to-hit penalties if the net isn't in its proper 'ready to spring out' conformation, the net can be bypassed by a flat DC Strength check to break the ropes (oh and they just have 5hp), and even if all goes well you just entangle rather than grapple. Though you can prevent movement with a net if the captive doesn't use any of the various outs a net permits. A grapple is like a ... 1 strand net, sort of? Without the weighted edges, the ability to cover the entire body, and so on. So outside of a cinematic game, IMO this idea just doesn't work. But in a cinematic game it absolutely could work. So that's what I mean that its sort of the GM's call as to what kind of game they're running, and getting into the realism arguments or even the RAW arguments is kind of not the *real* reason for making a ruling and moving on. It actually acts counter to that, in that it can create the impression 'oh, this is the part of the game where I use my player skill at debate-the-GM to win'.

Which also is not necessarily badwrongfun, but as with the runic magic system, you probably want to signal that it's going to be that kind of game in advance rather than just accidentally find yourself running it (or worse, running it that way for one player while running it strictly for another player who isn't using the same OOC conversational strategies). Like the aforementioned Paranoia game where table debate is literally pleading your case to Friend Computer - well-signaled, so good to go.

Telok

2024-05-22, 12:47 PM

I'm confused - wouldn't padded sumo combat be an optimal time to attempt stunts? :smallconfused:

That is, when every action is vital, I'd be disinclined to waste them; however, when my options are "chip some small percentage towards victory" vs "potentially change the landscape of the battlefield", suddenly it's a whole lot more appealing. There's a reason why BFC has such a good rep around here.

So why are your experiences and inclination the opposite of mine? :smallconfused:

It would, but...

TLDR: in the last 20 years of d&d every stunt-like thing I've attempted (outside a few 3e high level super-skill checks the d20 didn't matter on) has either failed from additional d20 rolls or had less effect than if I'd standard attacked or cast a spell.

Also, battlefield control in d&d is near exclusively hard-coded spells, not improvised actions & stunts by warriors.

Basically the vast majority of d&d combat takes place in small simple areas with few meaningful hazards and the assumption that all opponents must be killed. You can make it otherwise, but that's more work and not much encouraged by the mechanics. Most ad-hoc damage stops being meaningful after low levels because damage/hp is how the game scales difficulty post 3e, and the normal environmental hazards are scaled to not one-hit-kill low level pcs. Statuses could be useful except they've become less and less powerful except for action denial, again because its 'unfun' for pcs to be hit by debilitating effects. Thus the race to zero hp is kept focused on standard attacks while non-attack actions are depreciated.

There's also the extra rolls that are usually involved. In 4e opponents are level scaled and pcs are typically good at something with about a 75% success rate vs static dcs, or they aren't which gates whatever you're trying behind an extra usually 40%+ failure check. That's before getting into opposed rolls or the fact that most stunt type stuff in d&d calls for plysical strength & dexterity + acrobat & athlete rolls that most characters aren't very good at, and the ones that are good at it have the higher accuracy & damage attacks so losing that damage is harmful to success the majority of the time. In 5e the rolls & success rates are about the same (most pcs bonuses being nearly static relative to dcs) and while the opposition scales differently the hazard damage & dcs aren't scaled by level and have diminishing returns as levels increase.

Finally wotc's d&d's exception based design is strictly adhered to in combat and stunts inherently violate that. D&d gms have up to 20 years of the "if you don't have an ability that says you can, then you can't" paradigm governing often 60%+ of total game time. That's a hard habit for many of them to break, especially as there are a number of them who have never played anything but d&d. Notably, all computer games also work this way by the inherent limits of the technology, causing most gamers to get a double dose of "need a button" behavior reinforcement.

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-22, 12:58 PM

Basically the vast majority of d&d combat takes place in small simple areas with few meaningful hazards and the assumption that all opponents must be killed.
Not true. The knock out blow is hard coded in the Combat rules, chapter 9. (I would personally like to see better treatment of the moral bit from the early edtions added to the current DMG. I fold it in when I DM because I like it).
Your point on stunts - as implemented in other games - isn't too far off the mark. It's a feature that a lot of folks have lobbied the devs to fold into the game.

and the normal environmental hazards are scaled to not one-hit-kill low level pcs.
Actually, falling damage can do just that - it killed a bard in our first campaign - when it can't do that with higher level PCs. Our blade lock fell off of a dragon's back and hit the ground. His HP were low, but he was above zero, IIRC the fall was just under 200'. I guess that's a stunt.

As to some stunts: monks can run up and down walls and run across liquid surfaces at level 9. Kind of like a stunt.
I don't think that Battle Master Maneuvers are equivalent to stunts (not cinematic enough for the most part).

Statuses could be useful except they've become less and less powerful except for action denial, again because its 'unfun' for pcs to be hit by debilitating effects.

And yet we keep seeing Hold Person, Charmed condition, Paralyzed condition in the game, and the incapacitated condition. Our Life cleric got turned to stone by a gorgon. We had to go and find and NPC to cast Greater Restoration. That became a mission in its own right.

I've been playing this edition for about 10 years.
A few months ago, a Disintegrate did for a level 17 Cleric in the middle of a fight: we made the mistake of taking on a lich and his three or four stone/iron golems.

Your critique is off the mark.

Honestly, if you don't play the game anymore you might want to lay off the inaccurate summaries.
Enjoy the games that you do play.

kyoryu

2024-05-22, 01:28 PM

Statuses could be useful except they've become less and less powerful except for action denial, again because its 'unfun' for pcs to be hit by debilitating effects. Thus the race to zero hp is kept focused on standard attacks while non-attack actions are depreciated.

Not sure why non-action-denial status would be less effective?

Also, I'm a fan of the game being at least slightly asymmetrical for those reasons - I'm perfectly fine with PCs denying NPC actions.

Even denial on PCs can be handled more subtly and interestingly than just "you can't". 4e tried some of this, but it wasn't handled as well as it could have been, or required a GM mentality that wasn't really there. So, control that's more like "you can only attack this creature at <x> penalty" or "you take <y> damage when you perform this action" are, I think, a lot more interesting as they impact what the character does without just hard taking over the player's options.

lesser_minion

2024-05-22, 01:47 PM

But they weren't, because empirically, no roll from the PC would have succeeded. You physically cannot roll higher than a 20 on the die. There was no way for them to win, so there shouldn't have been a roll in the first place.

The point is that whether they matter or not is up to the DM, not the number on whatever statblock you found. (And to reiterate, I think the DM in this case made a bad call - two in fact.)

Fudging dice to ensure that a PC fails is basically indefensible no matter what system you're playing. So I'm not sure where the need to pre-emptively defend 5e came from.

Additionally, an opposed check involves two dice. Rolling a 20 on one isn't a guarantee that that side will win if the other side has a better modifier. This is also far from the only reason why a natural 20 isn't an automatic success, in 5e or any other edition.

JNAProductions

2024-05-22, 01:59 PM

Fudging dice to ensure that a PC fails is basically indefensible no matter what system you're playing. So I'm not sure where the need to pre-emptively defend 5e came from.

Your defence is also wrong. An opposed check involves two dice, rolling a 20 on one isn't a guarantee that that side will win. This is also far from the only reason why a natural 20 isn't an automatic success, in 5e or any other edition.

Echoing this. If you NEED an event to occur (dragon gets away, prince is kidnapped, queen is dead, whatever) then you include that in the pitch for the game. And it should, in my preference at least, be part of the introduction.

Assuming the DM was using a standard Young Blue Dragon, they've a Strength mod of +5. Even if the DM rules that the dragon wins ties, it's still a 10% chance of success against the 24 rolled by Catullus. Rolling it hidden really brings to mind the idea that the DM is just forcing the outcome they wanted.

Easy e

2024-05-22, 02:00 PM

If the report we have in the OP is accurate, my contention is that they didn't do that. "You should just attack instead" isn't "warning the player of potential consequences of their actions" because it isn't frank and open about the consequences of any actions.

The actual way I say this should have gone is that the very first response to "I want to sink my grappling hook into the dragon's wings so it can't fly away." should be "you won't be able to stop it flying away with a grappling hook" and letting the player choose what to do with that information. That actually tells the player what the consequences of the action will be.

When a DM "suggests" something else that IS a warning to the player. Perhaps it isn't a blunt hammer to the head warning, but it is a warning.

Person- "I want to go play in traffic."
Authority figure- "You might want to stay inside instead."

JNAProductions

2024-05-22, 02:02 PM

When a DM "suggests" something else that IS a warning to the player. Perhaps it isn't a blunt hammer to the head warning, but it is a warning.

Person- "I want to go play in traffic."
Authority figure- "You might want to stay inside instead."

I've been guilty of the "Are you sure?" as a DM.
It's much better to be clear-don't ask "Are you sure?" tell them "If you do [ACTION], [CONSQUENCES] will happen (potentially on a failure, potentially no matter what you roll)," and then ask them if they're sure.

Lay out the stakes. Make it clear.

kyoryu

2024-05-22, 02:06 PM

JNAProductions

2024-05-22, 02:10 PM

Talakeal

2024-05-22, 02:16 PM

So as for the situation:

If the GM fudged, they are almost certainly in the wrong.

If they are running a printed module, and it says the dragon flies away no matter what, it is a railroad, but I don't really hold it against the GM to follow the rails, although it certainly isn't a good sign.

Mechanically, it seems really weird that there is no benefit to being large in a grapple. I could easily see the GM giving it advantage in this situation, but even so it needs a 19 to match the PCs nat 20, so ~19% chance. The GM might also have had the two roles be unrelated; for example requiring an athletics roll from the PC to establish the hold and then a saving throw from the dragon to escape rather than a single opposed roll.

As for the thread though; this is something I notice a lot. People always tell me that I could have averted one of my famous "horror stories" by warning the PCs; but it doesn't help. Some players, and I am certainly getting this vibe from the OP, do not like being told no; they will double down on whatever the GM warned them against, and then hold a grudge against the GM when it doesn't work out for them.

Analyzing the scene:

A grappling hook is not a harpoon. It is not made to impale stuff, rather it is made to catch onto ledges.

Further, D&D is not a game about locational damage and called shots. It is not really fair to force the GM to come up with such a system on the fly to accommodate your stunt.

From a physics perspective, unless you are braced against something, the dragon is just going to lift you up and carry you away. If a PC told me they were trying this plan, I would assume they are bracing the rope against something to provide the needed leverage even if they didn't explicitly tell me so.

So, if the dragon successfully resists, I would assume either the player lost the tug of war and let go of the rope, the rope broke, or the dragon managed to disentangle itself and drop the rope. In none of these situations would the player be holding onto the rope as the dragon flew away.

Now, this is probably a good thing; the dragon would probably drop and then kill the lone PC.

However; this is something I have noticed with some players; remember how up-thread I said they double down and hold a grudge on the GM? Well, a lot of the time, their response to this situation is to suicide their character as a final screw-you to the GM; knowing that a dead PC mid adventure is disrupting the game and the narrative.

So, perhaps, not allowing the PC to be carried away by the dragon is itself a further part of the meta-game power play.

Ionathus

2024-05-22, 02:20 PM

Yeah, though the DM warning the player off it in this case would have needed the DM to clear up at the very start what the player's intended goal was and be open about it not working. The point to do that was when the grappling hook was mentioned, and the way to do it would be to say "You can't hold it down, it will fly off with your grappling hook and you as well if you want to hold on" not "Just click your attack button again I don't pay you to think".

Yep, absolutely. The problem isn't that the DM was wrong about the mechanics (though I do think they could've given more leeway -- see my next reply below -- I'll defend any DM's right to make their own judgment calls and stick to them) -- the problem is the DM not immediately making it clear that this was a doomed idea.

Also I love the heat on "Just click your attack button again I don't pay you to think." Very satisfying to me on a vindictive, bad-DM-judging level :smallbiggrin:

I'd still be minded to not have that work with a grappling hook, it doesn't really meaningfully restrain someone or something it's stuck in except by causing pain*.

Physics, mostly. If a horse can run while carrying a person, it can run while dragging that person behind them on a rope too. Its not like the person is attached to anything besides the horse/dragon.

A human can run while wearing a 25lbs. backpack, but not with a 25lbs. weight tied to one leg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_and_chain). You don't just "drag it along the ground" behind you: the movement of your leg jerks it around, sabotages your gait, and probably causes further damage. The weight isn't the only problem: where it's attached is also important.

It's believable to imagine a 170-lbs. adventurer attached to the wing of a horse-sized dragon would have a similar effect. OP's GM was entirely justified in making whatever ruling fit their game and their table (and really just whiffed on communicating it to OP), but it's a totally reasonable idea at its core.

Eh, I read it the opposite: the onus is on the player (that'd be me, I don't GM no more) interfacing using the existing rules. If a game isn't build around rule-of-cool narrative-driven, then making exceptions (such as the "kinda grapple but at range and without me being also grappled" of the opening post example) is a quick downward spiral to throwing the rules out altogether and just freeform word salad stuff (yes, I'm hyperboling).

Wanting to do a cool thing is all good and fun, but the slippery slope is there, and when the rulings are untethered from the rules, then you don't have a game anymore.
...
Looping back to grapplig hook at dragon: aside that I agree the GM could've should've said "no" or maybe "no, but if your intent is preventing him from leaving, you coukd try grappling?" As a fellow player if you'd have introduced the precedent that it's possbile to grapple at range at no condition imposed on myself? I wouldn't say I'd raise a fuss, but my mind for sure would go "ok, so in this game with this gm this is possible, how can I make use of this?"

Keep the cool things in the unstructured narrative time, is what I'm trying to say, because if you do coolthings in the more structured/codified parts of the game, then players like me will take that precedent and suddenly you reloading a pistol as a move action becomes me reloading a rocket launcher as a move action, rules are also safeguards for us players!

I don't put a lot of stock in slippery slope arguments when it comes to GMing. "If we let players think creatively once, soon they might want to think creatively all the time!" should be a message of encouragement, not a dire warning.

Embrace the chaos, I say. If I wanted to play a perfectly tactical and rules-as-written game with no edge cases or Rule Of Cool, I'd pick up Gloomhaven or take out a second mortgage and finally get into Warhammer 40K. I play D&D and other TTRPGs like it precisely because having a human at the helm allows for creativity.

Are you sure is utterly inadequate if the "players have phenomenally misread a situation and are about to get themselves killed". Because it does nothing to get to the bottom of how they have misread the situation, nor to better align their mental map with the GM's.

No, I was being pithy :smallbiggrin: "Are you sure" is just a meme that most D&D players seem to know, and I feel like it's often all I need to get players to think twice about their choice and really consider the consequences.

In a scenario where it's actually necessary, "Are you sure" should also come with a more explicit statement of the circumstances -- "Remember, this king has said he would immediately execute anyone who was even associated with the Forest Rebels. Are you sure you want to tell him you're their secret leaders? I'm not saying you can't tell him -- and you'd probably have pretty good odds of escaping given his quantity and quality of soldiers -- but I got the impression you had other things you wanted from him first..."

It's sometimes hard to do it in such a way that it doesn't sound condescending or controlling. But sometimes you do just have to pause the game, go above the table, and talk about the situation. 9 times out of 10, the players have forgotten an incidental line of dialogue or a key dynamic because it happened ten sessions and four months ago IRL, but was only five days ago in-game. "Your character would remember XYZ" is one of the most versatile and important tools in a DM's toolbox, and it's critical to good-faith DMing in my opinion.

Jason

2024-05-22, 02:49 PM

Fudging dice to ensure that a PC fails is basically indefensible no matter what system you're playing.
It's SOP in Paranoia.

But no, I don't ever fudge dice to make a PC fail. There are plenty of other tools in the box if I need to rescue an NPC or keep a PC from messing up some other vital plot point. 9 times out of 10 I let good ideas succeed, say goodbye to an NPC I wanted to save, and find some other way to get the plot moving again.

Easy e

2024-05-22, 03:22 PM

icefractal

2024-05-22, 03:24 PM

"Are you sure?" is unhelpful and insufficient for many cases.

All it does is tell the player that there's some reason they might not want to take the action. But if there's more than one such reason and the player has already considered the one they know about, the question does nothing.

Example:
* The PCs are investigating Baron Safflower and find out he's secretly an Orcus cultist who's been sacrificing people to summon demons.
* The PCs then see Count Sunflower (note, different person) walking past on the street, and mix up the name because they're similar.

Player: Sunflower?! This is our chance - I shoot him!
DM: Are you sure? (meaning: why would you attack this guy, he's not your enemy)
Player: Yes! (meaning: I know this is in public and I'll be a fugitive after doing so, but it's worth it to stop the human sacrifices)
Result: Messed up situation that makes no sense IC.

Better GM: You can shoot him, but why are you attacking Count Sunflower?
Player: Because he's an Orcus cultist, duh.
GM: That's Baron Safflower, different person. It's theoretically possible the Count could be one too, but you've seen no indication of such.

You can solve the problem from the player side too - if the GM asks whether you're sure, don't say yes or no. Instead, ask them why they're asking that.

ciopo

2024-05-22, 03:26 PM

I don't put a lot of stock in slippery slope arguments when it comes to GMing. "If we let players think creatively once, soon they might want to think creatively all the time!" should be a message of encouragement, not a dire warning.

Embrace the chaos, I say. If I wanted to play a perfectly tactical and rules-as-written game with no edge cases or Rule Of Cool, I'd pick up Gloomhaven or take out a second mortgage and finally get into Warhammer 40K. I play D&D and other TTRPGs like it precisely because having a human at the helm allows for creativity.

It's a matter of time and place, cool things during narrative time, like I don't know, put explosives in the elevator such that when it's called it blows up? cool beans! do it again! It's cool moment where planning and thinking results in a good time.

Ignoring the rules within the space where they are most-defined? (ie: combat) You unbound my action from the framework that exists, why are we pretending to play (whatever system), if the desired outcome is freeform cooperative worldbuilding?

kyoryu

2024-05-22, 03:29 PM

Out of curiosity, why is it always the DMs fault? Can player's be at fault? What is an example of a player being at fault?

I wouldn't say fault. I'd say responsibility.

The GM has the authoritative state of the world. As such, it's their job to ensure that everyone is on the same page, since they're the only one that can do it.. Players don't realize their view is out of sync, only the GM is in the position to know that.

"Are you sure?" is unhelpful and insufficient for many cases.

All it does is tell the player that there's some reason they might not want to take the action. But if there's more than one such reason and the player has already considered the one they know about, the question does nothing.

Example:
* The PCs are investigating Baron Safflower and find out he's secretly an Orcus cultist who's been sacrificing people to summon demons.
* The PCs then see Count Sunflower (note, different person) walking past on the street, and mix up the name because they're similar.

Player: Sunflower?! This is our chance - I shoot him!
DM: Are you sure? (meaning: why would you attack this guy, he's not your enemy)
Player: Yes! (meaning: I know this is in public and I'll be a fugitive after doing so, but it's worth it to stop the human sacrifices)
Result: Messed up situation that makes no sense IC.

Better GM: You can shoot him, but why are you attacking Count Sunflower?
Player: Because he's an Orcus cultist, duh.
GM: That's Baron Safflower, different person. It's theoretically possible the Count could be one too, but you've seen no indication of such.

I'd go one step further.

GM: "Why are you attacking Count Sunflower? He's just a nobleman, he's not really somebody you've had issues with?"
Player: "What? Hes an Orcus cultist!"
GM: "Ah, yeah, no, that's Baron Safflower. Count Sunflower is just a dude as far as you know."

The PCs know that they have no bad info on Sunflower, so bringing that up is relevant.

Rynjin

2024-05-22, 03:47 PM

But they weren't, because empirically, no roll from the PC would have succeeded. You physically cannot roll higher than a 20 on the die. There was no way for them to win, so there shouldn't have been a roll in the first place.

That...is not how opposed rolls work. Higher result between the two rolling parties wins.

PC: Rolls 20 on the die, gets a result of 24.
Dragon: Rolls 11 on the die, gets a result of 16.

Outcome: PC wins.

PC: Rolls 20 on the die, gets a result of 24.
Dragon: Rolls 19 on the die, gets a result of 24.

Outcome: Tie, meaning defender's advantage gives the dragon the win.

PC: Rolls 20 on the die, gets a result of 24.
Dragon: Rolls 20 on the die, gets a result of 25.

Outcome: Total dragon victory.

Long story short in an opposed rolls scenario, this roll was not "impossible". The dragon only had a 10% greater chance of success than the PC, at maximum; 5% chance if we take ties as the PC winning.

The point is that whether they matter or not is up to the DM, not the number on whatever statblock you found. (And to reiterate, I think the DM in this case made a bad call - two in fact.)

And the DM judged that it should be an opposed roll. That's why he had the OP roll a Strength check. Then also made the dragon roll something in secret. So obviously, empirically there was no set DC the GM had in mind that was "impossible". Except if he fudged said opposed roll, but I'm assuming lack of malice on the GM's part.

kyoryu

2024-05-22, 03:49 PM

On Authoritative State

This is a term I keep using, so I want to explain better.

I'm a game programmer, mostly multiplayer. One of the first issues you have in multiplayer games is that every machine involved has a slightly different understanding of what's going on, due to the fact that they're not local, and that it takes time for data to get from one machine to another.

So, you have a character at position [0,0]. The player starts moving to the right, and informs the other players of this.

So, until they receive that message, the other players will think the character is at [0,0], while the character thinks they're at like [5,0]. They're not consistent.

If player B tries to hit player A at [0,0], they'll think they should hit, while player A thinks they should miss.

MMOs handle this in a number of ways. Mostly, it's by having a server that is the authority - what they say goes. Usually, then, you send your requests to hit or whatever to the server, and the server will tell everyone what happens - what the individual client thinks just doesn't matter.

The GM in most RPGs in analogous to the server. Sure, some things (which square you're on in a gridded scenario) are public info, but there's a lot that's not. And, ultimately, the GM is presumed to be authoritative (which is not the same thing as right - even if they're wrong, their idea of reality is what will be ruled against.)

MMOs also are less strict than that in some ways - like, movement is usually what is called "client-predictive". That means that the client is allowed to say "yeah, I moved here", and the server then says "okay, that seems reasonable, sure you did" and updates everyone else. This can be similar in RPGs, too, that individuals can correct the GM's understanding, and the GM can go "oh, yeah, I forgot".

But, ultimately, the server/GM are authoritative about the state of the world. As such, it is their job to resolve disputes and to inform clients/players of state mismatches, and to do the ultimate resolution of actions.

NichG

2024-05-22, 03:58 PM

Out of curiosity, why is it always the DMs fault? Can player's be at fault? What is an example of a player being at fault?

I'd definitely say that not only can players be at fault, but just like DMs beyond just a player doing what they're responsible for and not breaking stuff, there is space for above-and-beyond things which make some players just better to have at the table than others, even stylistic differences aside.

Edit: As to Kyoryu's more focused point about responsibility in communication, I do think there are cases where it is the player's responsibility to recognize their own confusion and correct it. Mystery type scenarios for example have some elements of this. Also, situations where the confusion would be more visible to the player themselves than to the DM - e.g. places where the uncertainty would be revealed to the player by them trying to plan (in their own head), where rather than asking the DM something they just assume it. In general, if you can fix a problem but you don't, you have some responsibility for the problem - if a player could fix a communication issue but chooses not to, then that's (also) on them.

E.g. on that -10 to +10 scale, something like a player who is silently observing the session but also doesn't have a character to run would be the 0 baseline. They're not harming the game (nothing is wrong with them being there and watching) but they're not particularly contributing anything either.

A player who agrees to play a character but basically checks out and has to be poked to take their actions in combat and such? That's like a -1 in casual campaigns, down to as bad as a -4 in high difficulty/tight balance/tactical challenge types of games - the presence of that player is actually a detriment to the table compared to having decided not to fill that slot in at least certain identifiable ways. For the stuff I run, this would almost never be worse than a -1 generally.

Spotlight hogging? Maybe a -1 or -2. More work for the DM, but its fixable.

A player who constantly tells other players incorrect things about the rules, or make up 'rules' whole-cloth and tell players 'how things work', bypassing the GM? Probably around a -3, depending on details. Could be worse, but generally its not *so* bad because these things are fixable and just annoying. I don't just mean doing this by accident once or twice, but as a pattern of behavior or even intentional thing like 'I don't like the way the GM rules this, so I'm going to tell the other players it works differently' kinds of BS.

A player who loves to get into various kinds of OOC interactions that halt the game? -1 to -4, with -1 being like side-conversations with people who need to pay attention and -4 being like power struggle types of things with the GM (constant rules disputes, complaining without accepting any sort of resolution in a way that interrupts the game, etc).

A player who joins a campaign with a group just at threshold-of-play, but then 50% of the time schedules other things over the game? Maybe a -4, because it actually prevents play from happening for others.

A player who randomly initiates PvP behaviors in a cooperative game or at a table with a no-PvP rule? That's like a -3 even when its some small petty thing (rogue stealing a few coins to show off their rogueyness), and the high end having almost no ceiling - sabotaging the thing the rest of the party has been working on building for the last 6 months, killing PCs or NPCs the PCs care about, etc could be -7, -8, whatever. If some player or GM says 'I'm quitting the hobby over it', at least a -7. Physical violence results, at least -8, going to -9 depending on the real life consequences. Since I'm reserving the 10s for 'my imagination is not good enough' I can't give examples and still hold to that rubric; it gets cartoonish except, well, people getting angry enough can lead to ruined lives even without needing some kind of Olympian-level bad player.

A player who constantly lobbies for rule interpretations that benefit them, or manipulates the GM? At least a -3, no ceiling. I've been in a game with someone I'd call at least a -7, maybe even a -8, who basically did individual private messages on various shared IM/social media platforms with the players trying to get them to all gang up on the DM, and essentially crashed the game and gave the DM burnout. Probably ruined some real-life friendships there.

A player who uses the game as an excuse to bully other players or the GM? At least a -5 (even just at the level of like 'git gud scrub' comments), no ceiling.

That's the bad side of things...

On the good side of things, players being proactive, players being aware of when other players (or the GM) are not having fun, players who can mediate disputes or help the group reach consensus (general leadership), players who can catch misunderstandings and miscommunications and understand how to explain things to each-other to prevent or fix them, players who become invested in the game and contribute creatively to make the experience better for everyone, etc. Reading the GM's mind is also a good trait IMO - not required, but a player who can pick up on subtle tells or the way things are leaning and play along is great. Can I put numbers to those? Uh...

A sort of contentious one is the chaos gremlin player, the one who pushes a big red button before the party can fully discuss whether to push the big red button. For me this isn't + or - on its own, its very dependent on the degree to which the player reads the room and recognizes a stall and then acts to break it up, in which case its a huge plus. I basically want at least one (probably exactly one is best) 'considerate chaos gremlin' in every group I run for ideally. But it can also be a moderate minus if this is done inconsiderately.

Slipjig

2024-05-22, 07:54 PM

Really, there's no way your character should have been able to hold down the dragon anyway in this scenario. No matter how strong they are, the maximum amount of downward force they can exert is their own bodyweight. Anything beyond that is them just having a better grip on the rope as they are pulled into the air.

Admittedly, it sounds like your DM didn't handle the situation well overall.

Psyren

2024-05-22, 10:00 PM

Rynjin

2024-05-22, 10:21 PM

@Rynjin, you're right, I misread the situation - it was indeed possible (albeit vanishingly unlikely) for the PC's natural 20 to be a failure without any malice or error from the DM. But combined with the rest of the story I definitely think there was fudging going on and that the roll was pointless.

Yeah, don't get me wrong, I think we're on the same page there. I think everything "on paper" is fine but the behind the screen roll that miraculously beats a 20 is always pretty sus. It's why I roll almost eveyrthing openly. The only exceptions are things which are completely secret to the PCs, like Stealthed enemies or catching a Disease.

Quertus

2024-05-22, 11:39 PM

Yes, yes, yes.

:smallbiggrin:

Since the GM has the authoritative understanding of the world and game (not necessarily the "correct" one, to be clear, I mean authoritative in more like a computer-sciencey way), it is a primary responsibility of theirs to ensure that everyone is in sync with them. This is one of the biggest soft skills a GM needs, and it requires that they deeply understand that not everybody is working with the same mental model as them, which often feels like a fairly advanced skill.

Any tips for learning this skill, or for applying it to the issue at hand?

Nit: I don't think they generally do. They stick to ledges, as that gives something for them to "catch" on.

Hahaha, let's just say I was being silly. :smalltongue: (I was actually picturing the classic Robin Hood castle walls, not walls in general)

I generally agree, and play games that encourage that. However, I'm also not going to BadWrongFun not doing that.

Good call.

And that's where as a GM I'd probably step in and say "guys, guys, no." I'd also come up with a reason not to, but I'm also very much Not About finding rules loopholes that break the game. If for no other reason than "if it's that easy, why doesn't everybody do it?"

Ah, that was the trick: everyone in beekeeper circles does do it, because it's really effective with bees. Even if it's not effective as a general tactic against arbitrary monsters, it should be in this specific case. (carrying capacity and not murderhoboing all your foes I'm assuming are not facets you'd call out with a "guys, guys, no, that loophole breaks my game" response :smallamused:)

I'm not saying I'm right, of course, and some people do want to play in those games. Which is why I think including the OOC conversation is an important part of it, even if I paper over it with an IC justification.

100%. I'm not a rail fan, but modules inherently get a little linear, especially if it's a series of them. And that's fine (again, not my cuppa but no BadWrongFun), but I think it's important to clarify, OOC, the parameters of the game when it's clear there's a mismatch.

I can definitely handle a rails game easier if I've been told up front it's a rails game, as I can set my expectations.

And again and again with the having the right mindest. :smallcool: You make it look easy.

especially in a 'I think my action should work' case, centers things on that one player rather than on the group.

Spotlight sharing? I feel that's an odd take, but OK.

First, I feel that "table discussions" are a place where everyone can contribute. In particular, at some tables, just all the players getting behind an idea is all it takes for a GM to "rule of cool" allow it. Not my personal style, mind you, just the most obvious "everyone is participating is a requirement for 'everyone wants this' style of rulings" example to show that everyone can participate in such things.

Second, "I want to do cool thing" seems like a really good place for a player to take their share of the spotlight. So, if we're ever gonna focus on a player, I'd prefer that over most of the standard alternatives ("you got the killing blow!", "the Rogue goes off and scouts for hours" / Shadowrun (X-1)/X of the time thumb-twiddling, "talky bits" where only 1 player interacts (or, worse, where the GM only allows 1 player to interact), etc), both for value and duration of the spotlight.

So, afaict, bringing up spotlight sharing just makes me say, "yes, please!" to table discussions of a proposed action.

See this I think starts from a good place, but then it kind of follows a path to what I'd consider an error. Yes, communication is the job. But that's communication, *not* persuasion. And while teaching can be good, sometimes its unwelcome or even outright inappropriate.

Maybe it's me being loose with my words and concepts. To me, communication, persuasion, teaching? They're all "talky bits"; so long as we all end up happily on the same page, I care little which route we take. Note that the fallback plans when we cannot get to that shared space though understanding are "everyone pulls out their (verbal) clue-by-fours and beats the ignoramus with them until they admit they're an ignoramus and submit", or the even worse, "let's just do something stupid for now and discuss it later" (more on that one below).

And, because I think it fits better here, even if it ties into things below, I'll go ahead and add that... when evaluating a new action, I *start* with physics/realism. And that's important.

See, one could start with, say, game balance, and then attempt to back-port that into completely random disassociated rules, but IME that's just dumb. It never works out in a way that satisfies, well, most anyone I play with, and certainly not me.

Instead, I start with "what are you attempting", "how should this work", and try to translate that into game rules.

That has the result of everything having what I'll call a consistent, memorable, "I can see how you got here" feel to it, like Knowledge: Nature letting you choose an easier to climb tree reducing the DC of the Climb check being a ruling where you can follow the thought process, in a way "number of spellbooks gives a synergy bonus to climb checks" (for balance reasons, because spellbooks are heavy) doesn't.

So "convince me" not only is good on its own merits, but can also be, "convince me that some other consideration (game balance, spotlight sharing, character concept ("really, you're a Dragon Grappler?"), whatever) should be taking priority over my presumed focus of realism/consistency/verisimilitude".

Or, to put it in perhaps the most approachable way, explaining to me why you think something should work will (hopefully) reveal your thought process, and (hopefully) reveal the disconnect, be it a material or stylistic one.

Because "I grapple hook the dragon to keep it from moving" produces a "the ****?" response, which, as I've mentioned in other threads, is a sign of a disconnect that needs to be addressed.

alignment

Yeah, you lost me on this one. I hate alignment, so it'd be a good pick for trying to write a convincing argument for me, except I just don't see the relevance in this case. I'm guessing it was intended to parallel a position you want me to reevaluate, but I'm guessing you're arguing against a position I don't actually hold, and that's why it's just not sticking the landing?

There's a time and a place, and being careful of those is going to be important for the plus side of things. A simple and really powerful move is to say 'lets talk about this after game' when there are larger things that need to be untangled.

So I've finally figured out why I have such a visceral HATE reaction to that concept: because when people implement it IRL, it basically translates to, "I'm a narcissistic moron who has a stupid idea that nobody would ever accept if they actually thought about it, and I either don't care or actively want all the detrimental effects to (your) possessions, status, and/or health that following this stupid plan blindly will result in".

So, going forward, my response to anyone suggesting such things in game is, "Oh, if it doesn't matter to you if we do it correctly or not because it can just be retconned later, then let's go with my way until we discuss it after the game, OK?" That preserves your momentum, and my sanity and engagement. Perfect plan?

For something like the OP's situation, the way I'd handle it if trying to run 'normal' D&D would probably be to say something like: 'If you do that action, I'm going to run it as an attack with an improvised ranged weapon the size of the grapple head, so you might do 1d4 bashing damage or something if you hit AC but the grapple will just bounce off; if you crit and confirm then its piercing and the hook will be latched in, but the dragon can dislodge it with a Move action at the cost of taking the attack damage again; for what you're trying to do, the appropriate weapon would be a net; and a net doesn't grapple, it entangles and permits an unopposed strength check to just break out, just so you know for the future.' I'm not trying to argue that its physically realistic (mistake IMO), I'm not trying to enter into a debate with the player about what the best possible way to run this would be (because that loses the momentum of the fight and takes spotlight from others). However I *am* trying to communicate clearly how I will run things if the player goes ahead with the action, keeping in mind their intent.

If the player wants to discuss alternate approaches, that's fine - its the gameplay. If the player wants to argue 'no, you should run it my way', then 'for now I'm running it this way, lets talk after game if this is really important to you'. That talk may not be a physics debate. More likely than not, its going to be me explaining similar things to what I'm saying now, that in a fight situation momentum of play is important, abstraction is to be expected, my priority is to make good enough rulings and move things forward rather than spend an hour figuring out how to model penetrating wounds in D&D, and that things like increasing the resolution of the combat model are what I use the time between campaigns for rather than the time at the table - they're welcome to pitch the idea that next we play a hyper-realistic system, and even help me design it.

Did you just... casually suggest the thing I just came up with after struggling with for years (or decades)? Or am I just reading it that way because I just came up with it? Or did you just give the standard, "I don't care if it's stupid, we can retcon it later" response?

Also, I agree that "realism" isn't the only criteria (no, not even realism + consistency) - things like "game balance" are also concerns to take into account when adjudicating undefined areas of the rules.

And like, if after saying the offhand thing about how a Net is the appropriate weapon in bog-standard D&D the player responded with 'well actually, with a net you can also hold something in place with an opposed strength check' I'd say 'that may be so, but you don't have a net, lets move on' and not get into a rules debate about whether e.g. the opposed strength check could be bypassed by making the break DC of the rope in the hypothetical that this was a net instead of a grapple. That would definitely be a player trying to detach from the fight and just debate rules, and that's unfair to the other players.

No more unfair than "a combat" - they can all participate if they want to. And they should want to - it's the health of the game and the happiness of the players that are the Stakes.

That said, I agree nets have (onerous) "movement restriction" rules, that grappling hooks do not have "net" rules text attached, and that a good default stance is that that absence (and the general game difficulty of the action via nets) means something.

Now if I were running a more high-powered, super-hero/demigod/wuxia/action movie kind of game (which honestly is actually closer to my normal), I'd probably just let the OP's thing work but fix the problems in my narration. E.g. no, piercing the wing with a grapple and then expecting to hold the dragon is nonsense but I don't need to give a physics lecture about that, instead its just "Okay, you hurl the grapple with such force it not only punctures the wing, but wraps around the dragon's body and ends up getting lodged against their horns! Oh by the way, the free end is receding fast as the dragon thrashes - you could grab it, I'll let that go as a non-action, but you probably need to secure it to yourself in a way that isn't going to be so easy to get free of - want to tie your fate together with it?". Essentially 'yes,but', because it keeps the action fluid and narrative, not because its necessarily physically the most correct thing. Zany stuff just works, but I get to throw in complications, and you can accept or reject and we move on.

It sounds like my ignorance of how wings work results in a similar "what I expect this to have to look like" as what you just described.

Which seems a good time to mention: I'm fine with one PC doing something cool like this. I just write my headcanon such that they did something phenomenally one-in-a-trillion improbable and cool like that, and that explains why this isn't Standard Imperial Procedure, why nobody ever actually attempts something like that. I'm even fine with one PC being so Wuxia that they can do so repeatedly - I'm really glad I teamed up with them, they're awesome! But unless the setting makes that level of awesome an expected norm, I start losing traction when multiple people can do that same thing that sounds as unrealistic as "grappling hook the dragon" both did to me and you make it sound.

So, in the case of the runes magic system, there's a signal there which is absent in the OP's case. Namely, if I put a system like that in front of a player, I'm actually saying 'the gameplay here is playing a magical engineer'. I'm *explicitly inviting* that. Hopefully I would only do that if the players as a group were interested, but that's a failing I know about myself - I would totally put that in there even if its only going to appeal to one player. So practically speaking, what I should do is again 'lets talk after game and hash out the details then, so other people don't sit here for 2 hours while we nerd out about magical physics'. Would I do that? Ehh, I never claimed to be a +10 GM... I'd probably mess this up more often than I should.

You're confusing me more and more in this thread.

So, if only 1 player connects with a particular subsystem, that's great! That makes it clear that that subsystem has built-in nich-protection for that player. Whether that subsystem is "runes", "combat", "talk to the nobility", "talk to <this PC>'s family", "interact with <that PC's love interest>", "investigation", "puzzles", "anything to do with religion", or what have you. That makes it really easy to balance the spotlight and ensure everyone gets a chance to shine.

What you're calling a problem I think of as part of the solution.

Granted, that mostly only works if you develop a playstyle optimized to make it a solution, in a group with enough common interests to make those the focus of the campaign - or at least the bulk of the time spent at the table during the campaign, which are not the same things. Otherwise, you can get Shadowrun thumb-twiddling.

And the point of bringing up Runes was, what if the Runes were an inconsistent jumble, where the GM clearly didn't care about making their rules make any sense. Wouldn't that have detracted from the specific type of enjoyment you got out of Exploring that subsystem? It was simply a call to "even though there are other valid considerations, do your own experiences not give voice to the importance of consistency and thought-through rules?".

Nets are a thing at least in 3.5e, and the rules for nets make it pretty clear that a grapple isn't going to do very much... You have a 10ft range max, you have bad to-hit penalties if the net isn't in its proper 'ready to spring out' conformation, the net can be bypassed by a flat DC Strength check to break the ropes (oh and they just have 5hp), and even if all goes well you just entangle rather than grapple. Though you can prevent movement with a net if the captive doesn't use any of the various outs a net permits. A grapple is like a ... 1 strand net, sort of? Without the weighted edges, the ability to cover the entire body, and so on. So outside of a cinematic game, IMO this idea just doesn't work. But in a cinematic game it absolutely could work. So that's what I mean that its sort of the GM's call as to what kind of game they're running, and getting into the realism arguments or even the RAW arguments is kind of not the *real* reason for making a ruling and moving on. It actually acts counter to that, in that it can create the impression 'oh, this is the part of the game where I use my player skill at debate-the-GM to win'.

Which also is not necessarily badwrongfun, but as with the runic magic system, you probably want to signal that it's going to be that kind of game in advance rather than just accidentally find yourself running it (or worse, running it that way for one player while running it strictly for another player who isn't using the same OOC conversational strategies). Like the aforementioned Paranoia game where table debate is literally pleading your case to Friend Computer - well-signaled, so good to go.

I guess... although I kinda agree... if you haven't successfully covered what kind of game you're running in Session 0, then it sounds like a really good idea to me to hit the brakes, and work that out asap, with a discussion of how this will work and why wrt what kind of game is being run. Getting everyone on the same page is, IMO, the priority here. Otherwise, you get the situation the OP described, where both are getting increasingly frustrated with on another, because neither is using their words to discuss game style and expectations.

On a different note, "how and how well players engage in various minigames" (not just "convince me", but "play 20 questions with the GM", learn about an NPC rather than just "roll diplomacy", and so many others) has, I admit, begun to become a concern, and a balance concern. Still, player differentiation via "just presses game buttons" vs "thinks outside the box" is a feature, not a bug, it's the game operating as designed IMO. So I agree in the general case that it's something to watch for, but the specific case is IMO one the GM should generally already have balanced for before the game starts.

-----

To sum up the thrust of my reasoning on this issue:

So, for the record, I'm generally (and outspokenly) on the side of, "grappling hook to stop a dragon doesn't make a lot of sense to me" (and, secondarily and tertiary concerns, raises balance concerns, doesn't match existing rules structures, and might set some bad precedents). But if I had been a player in a game, and somehow thought that that made sense, and wanted to try it? Say, if NichG were the GM, and their post history led me to believe that they ran a high-wuxia game, or I was otherwise sold on an inaccurate vision of the type of game they were running? Then, although many comments, like "even nets in system aren't that good" or "catching the membrane will just do <negligible> damage before dislodging (otherwise this would be a standard tactic / because that matches the general rules structure / whatever reasoning)" would suffice to make me nod and smile and agree in this particular instance, I really feel that addressing that misconception is imperative for an enjoyable experience, to prevent the type of repeated clash of concepts we see in the OP.

-----

And, to poke the thread topic directly, I'm not generally a fan of what the OP described as "you can, but you can't". I'd like to think that, had I been GM, I would have asked the OP to explain their reasoning, found the disconnect, and had a discussion to get the OP on the same page wrt modules, rails, and the style of game I was running (where outside the box actions need to be "beekeepers use smoke to make bees docile" level of supported exceptions in order to outperform standard inside the box actions, and standard inside the box nets are weak) - and that maybe that would have happened much earlier in the night than the dragon grappling incident.

In practice... well, there's a whole series of rolls I'd need to have made, in order to have noticed the problem, evaluated it correctly, and said what I intended, so... my success rate wouldn't have been as high as I'd like. But in a perfect world, I'd like to think that's how I would have handled it.

Catullus64

2024-05-22, 11:49 PM

Player, what constructive feedback did you give the DM about this later? Not in the moment, but after you had thought about it for a week?

Well, this happened Saturday, and I haven't seen them since. I knew better than to try to give feedback at the end of session because I was still annoyed and would have said something I regretted. This was my first time with this person as my GM, though I've had them as a player before, and the simple fact is I plan not to play in his games anymore. Yes, everyone has a learning curve, but as we are not personal friends and this was a stand-alone adventure, I feel no obligation to suffer through unfun games on the dubious supposition that he will improve to my taste.

One comment he did make after the fact, which has just returned to me, was that if the rope had held, I would have been dragged off into the sky and likely pancaked. From this I get the sense that maybe he felt like he needed to protect me from what he viewed as a bad decision. If I planned to play in more of his games, I would say that I understood and accepted that risk, and that I want to be allowed to fail, even (perhaps especially) when character death is on the line. His job as the GM is not to protect me from myself.

Telok

2024-05-23, 01:07 AM

Not true. The knock out blow is hard coded in the Combat rules, chapter 9....

...I've been playing this edition for about 10 years.

Chapter 9 in the second D&D DMG on my shelf goes from pages 51 to 79. You'll have to be more specific. The first D&D DMG on my shelf doesn't have numbered chapters.

I've been playing over 30 years, and started 5e when it first came out over 10 years ago. I no longer have ****s to give for failing to read my posts. I don't run 5e, I'll play it if nothing else is available. Someone asked why I said something and I explained my experience. You may disagree with my conclusions, but you may not accuse me of lying about my experiences.

HalfTangible

2024-05-23, 01:27 AM

"As you go to say no, you say 'yes' instead." -XP to Level 3

NichG

2024-05-23, 03:48 AM

Spotlight sharing? I feel that's an odd take, but OK.

First, I feel that "table discussions" are a place where everyone can contribute. In particular, at some tables, just all the players getting behind an idea is all it takes for a GM to "rule of cool" allow it. Not my personal style, mind you, just the most obvious "everyone is participating is a requirement for 'everyone wants this' style of rulings" example to show that everyone can participate in such things.

Second, "I want to do cool thing" seems like a really good place for a player to take their share of the spotlight. So, if we're ever gonna focus on a player, I'd prefer that over most of the standard alternatives ("you got the killing blow!", "the Rogue goes off and scouts for hours" / Shadowrun (X-1)/X of the time thumb-twiddling, "talky bits" where only 1 player interacts (or, worse, where the GM only allows 1 player to interact), etc), both for value and duration of the spotlight.

It's not a given that having OOC discussions about the game rather than playing the game is what everyone at the table is there to do with their limited time. It's better GMing to respect everyone's time in that sense, and not just let one player yank the table out of the game and into that kind of discussion just because they unilaterally choose to do so. You might enjoy it, but not everyone necessarily will, and a good GM is going to be sensitive to that.

It's not that table discussion should always be forbidden or something like that, but in the realm of 'good GM-ing' rather than 'average GM-ing', maintaining momentum, balancing spotlight, etc are ways that a good GM can create a better experience than a GM who simply doesn't do anything wrong. That means that sometimes table discussion happens - when its clear that a plurality of players want it, or when that quantity of table discussion will efficiently clear up something that would otherwise be a recurring pain point. But when its just some player who would rather be talking about D&D than playing it when everyone else is waiting for their turn, I'd say its pretty mediocre GM-ing to always take that bait. 'We can talk about it after game' is the easy move in that case. The hard move is somehow addressing the underlying reason why you have a player that would rather talk about your game than play in it. The very hard move would be something something so that the player actually becomes more considerate of the other players and when they disagree or feel like an argument but others are lukewarm about it, they learn to themselves say 'you know what, I disagree but lets just play on, maybe we can talk about it later' when it isn't really important.

Actually this makes me think something like a 'guide to unilateral social strategies and their counters' would be useful reading for advanced GMing. Those are some of the trickiest situations to recognize that you're in, and to deal with without sacrificing functionality in other ways. I don't know if I have the exact words to say this correctly, but there's something like a general pattern where game (or any social activity) runs better when you make yourself vulnerable in certain ways - ideas like 'giving the benefit of the doubt', or always being willing to communicate, always taking things in good faith, agreeing to try to preserve each-others' fun above seeking your own, etc. Even without malice, even without actually realizing they're doing it, I think its easy for people to sort of... sometimes leverage asymmetries in those offers when its convenient to them. The really highly skilled stuff is being able to basically prevent that from becoming a problem while at the same time not sacrificing the advantages of mutual trust and table norms and promises like making sure everyone's on the same page before moving forward.

Maybe it's me being loose with my words and concepts. To me, communication, persuasion, teaching? They're all "talky bits"; so long as we all end up happily on the same page, I care little which route we take. Note that the fallback plans when we cannot get to that shared space though understanding are "everyone pulls out their (verbal) clue-by-fours and beats the ignoramus with them until they admit they're an ignoramus and submit", or the even worse, "let's just do something stupid for now and discuss it later" (more on that one below).

And, because I think it fits better here, even if it ties into things below, I'll go ahead and add that... when evaluating a new action, I *start* with physics/realism. And that's important.

See, one could start with, say, game balance, and then attempt to back-port that into completely random disassociated rules, but IME that's just dumb. It never works out in a way that satisfies, well, most anyone I play with, and certainly not me.

Instead, I start with "what are you attempting", "how should this work", and try to translate that into game rules.

That has the result of everything having what I'll call a consistent, memorable, "I can see how you got here" feel to it, like Knowledge: Nature letting you choose an easier to climb tree reducing the DC of the Climb check being a ruling where you can follow the thought process, in a way "number of spellbooks gives a synergy bonus to climb checks" (for balance reasons, because spellbooks are heavy) doesn't.

So "convince me" not only is good on its own merits, but can also be, "convince me that some other consideration (game balance, spotlight sharing, character concept ("really, you're a Dragon Grappler?"), whatever) should be taking priority over my presumed focus of realism/consistency/verisimilitude".

Or, to put it in perhaps the most approachable way, explaining to me why you think something should work will (hopefully) reveal your thought process, and (hopefully) reveal the disconnect, be it a material or stylistic one.

Because "I grapple hook the dragon to keep it from moving" produces a "the ****?" response, which, as I've mentioned in other threads, is a sign of a disconnect that needs to be addressed.

There's a lot here and I don't want to slice up your post... So rather than make a bunch of labyrinthine sentence by sentence responses, I think I'll just say that its a really good skill to be able to separate 'game I would personally like to play in/run' from 'is the GM accomplishing what they set out to achieve with their group?'. Game balance over all is a valid style and a valid goal, even if its not a game I would personally want to play in that doesn't make it a bad game. Also players can have this mental hurdle as well...

A style of prioritizing realism is also a valid style, but its not the only style. A realism GM isn't 'just a better GM' than a cinematic GM or a challenge GM. They might be 'just a better GM for you', but whats good advice for someone who has you as a player might be terrible advice for their table, their players, and their shared goals. Just something to keep in mind...

Yeah, you lost me on this one. I hate alignment, so it'd be a good pick for trying to write a convincing argument for me, except I just don't see the relevance in this case. I'm guessing it was intended to parallel a position you want me to reevaluate, but I'm guessing you're arguing against a position I don't actually hold, and that's why it's just not sticking the landing?

No, its not about evaluating a position, its a classic example of really fraught and disruptive and unfortunately quite common table debates that emerge from a ruling. The point I want you to take away here is that when its 'something in the fantasy world happens to the imaginary character' then there's a level of insulation that permits us to consider things and play things that wouldn't be acceptable IRL. It's fine for the GM to play an orc killing a kid, because 'its the orc killing the kid, not the GM killing the kid'. It's fine for the GM to play a cleric of an ostensibly LG deity who calls for the punishment of someone who killed a slaver, because that just means that the LG deity is a jerk in this setting.

Once you lift that to table debate though, you lose the layer of insulation. Now its not the character who is wrong, its the player who is wrong. Now its not the character who has a warped morality, it's the player who is arguing OOC to justify why their character's action was okay. Now its not the character who is an 8 Int Fighter and who naturally might not understand physics well enough to figure out what happens when they leash themselves to a dragon, its the player who is being dumb.

Like, you talk about ignoramuses a lot in your post which I take to be hyperbolic jests about made-up silly players. But if you said that about an actual player at your table for something they thought should work which you disagreed with, that's the start of a very bad pattern of disrespect. And if you or another player actually said it at the table, whoo... At best you've got someone who might be hurt a bit but will just shrug it off, at worst now you've got someone who feels belittled and needs to get some power back to equalize the situation and chooses to escalate.

Again, this isn't to say 'all OOC conversation is too dangerous to ever have, shut it down!'. But like, its very useful to recognize that part of the GM's role is as referee - to make a dispassionate call and move on, right or wrong, so that the game can continue. That provides a lot of emotional insulation that is very helpful, especially when a player is really fixed on an idea that they think is cool but which as GM you rule wouldn't work. Its very useful to be able to move past that without having to say 'no, your idea wasn't cool, it was dumb, and I'm going to force you to capitulate and agree with me that it was dumb'. Similarly, reverse player and GM here, the same kind of thing is true - the GM isn't required to have physics major levels of knowledge about classical mechanics to GM a game, and a player making them feel like they *personally* have the onus to justify their ruling to the satisfaction of the player before they can get on with their job is being a bit toxic.

It's a good GM skill to recognize when one is being baited into a fight and have a bunch of strategies to bypass that.

So I've finally figured out why I have such a visceral HATE reaction to that concept: because when people implement it IRL, it basically translates to, "I'm a narcissistic moron who has a stupid idea that nobody would ever accept if they actually thought about it, and I either don't care or actively want all the detrimental effects to (your) possessions, status, and/or health that following this stupid plan blindly will result in".

So, going forward, my response to anyone suggesting such things in game is, "Oh, if it doesn't matter to you if we do it correctly or not because it can just be retconned later, then let's go with my way until we discuss it after the game, OK?" That preserves your momentum, and my sanity and engagement. Perfect plan?

Well if a player were to tell me that, then I say 'okay sure, I'll give you my campaign notes, here's the GM chair, I'll roll up a character'. Which hey, maybe you'd take me up on and I'd actually get to play a game, in which case fine - bit weird, but fine.

But if you're staying a player, its not your job to run the world any more than its my job to tell you what your character does. My job is to make sure you understand how I will run the world in response to your actions, inasmuch as your character should know how their own stuff works and how the world they live in works. If I do that, even if you would run it differently, there's not going to be any 'detrimental effects ... that following this plan blindly will result in' because I'm telling you the detrimental effects and you can do something else instead.

Did you just... casually suggest the thing I just came up with after struggling with for years (or decades)? Or am I just reading it that way because I just came up with it? Or did you just give the standard, "I don't care if it's stupid, we can retcon it later" response?

I mean, minus the 'retcon it later'. The player gets a chance to speak their mind, but maybe all they receive in return is an explanation of my position and a 'agree to disagree'. If its a build-affecting thing because of a disagreement of how a mechanic works or something, I will offer a free rebuild. If there's something I legitimately feel I screwed up or a consequence I missed, I'll run things differently moving forward. But the point of 'we're doing it this way and moving on' is to do it and move on, not leave it unresolved, so retconning the actual event is almost never going to be on the table.

No more unfair than "a combat" - they can all participate if they want to. And they should want to - it's the health of the game and the happiness of the players that are the Stakes.

Um, no? The two things have nothing to do with each-other, nor does an abstract unrelated rules debate that isn't even about something the character has or will actually do actually bear on the health of the game or the happiness of the players.

Debating rulings is not playing the game. It's not an inherently 'ask the player to leave' worthy thing when I GM, but like... as a player, this is very annoying player behavior and if it was a weekly thing and the GM got drawn into it like clockwork, I might leave the game myself rather than keep playing at a table with someone who constantly did this for things that ultimately wouldn't matter.

You're confusing me more and more in this thread.

So, if only 1 player connects with a particular subsystem, that's great! That makes it clear that that subsystem has built-in nich-protection for that player. Whether that subsystem is "runes", "combat", "talk to the nobility", "talk to <this PC>'s family", "interact with <that PC's love interest>", "investigation", "puzzles", "anything to do with religion", or what have you. That makes it really easy to balance the spotlight and ensure everyone gets a chance to shine.

What you're calling a problem I think of as part of the solution.

The only time that's real is real time. It's not good balance if player A gets to solve 1 problem and B gets to solve 1 problem and C gets to solve 1 problem if the game involved player A talking with me for 3 hours about solving their problem, B spent 5 minutes talking with me to solve theirs, and C spent 30 seconds. That means that players B and C spent most of the time sitting there watching me talk with A. Unless B and C really just want to watch (or, say, play games on their phones and hang out with friends but not actually play), that's bad. It's also an easy trap to fall into if, say, player A is the most passionately interested in the game while B and C are half checked-out even when they have stuff to do. Lean into that and A will think you're the best GM ever, and tell you that, and make you feel like the best GM ever. While B and C will be thinking like 'meh, I would have rather just sat at home'.

More and more I'm an anti-fan, to borrow Kyoryu's term, of niche protection in games. Better if everyone can in principle do everything and anything, but the game is such that there are personal decisions and goals and not just group decisions and goals. You can gain the power to duplicate items and so can the other three players, perhaps through different paths to power, but you choose to burn your own bodymass to do it (and therefore must be constantly looking for restaurants to bulk up at) while player B has to fuel it with gold from their merchant empire while player C is making contracts with the fae to do really weird stuff like swap two kids' shoes.

And the point of bringing up Runes was, what if the Runes were an inconsistent jumble, where the GM clearly didn't care about making their rules make any sense. Wouldn't that have detracted from the specific type of enjoyment you got out of Exploring that subsystem? It was simply a call to "even though there are other valid considerations, do your own experiences not give voice to the importance of consistency and thought-through rules?".

Well the GM makes the system as they do, offers it to me, and I can decide whether or not to engage with that. If it turns out to be an inconsistent jumble, oh well. If it turns out to be extremely consistent, great. If I need to explain my thoughts in detail to the GM to get it to work, I do that outside of game so I'm not taking up everyone's time (which in practice is what we did, because this was the GM I was driving 6 hours to play with, so I and another player who was local to them would meet up, hash out designs, and talk through them with the GM over dinner or breakfast before game rather than during game).

But if in order for the rune system to be consistent we had to periodically stop game and have hours long physics debates? Then what would have been healthier for the game would be to let the rune system be inconsistent, and maybe I'm a bit less excited about it - but 5 other people aren't bored out of their wits during their precious gaming time, which would be a net win. Fortunately, that wasn't necessary, because the GM was good enough that they could pull it off, and we could read each-others minds and both go with the flow well enough to not need to disrupt game to have these things.

If the GM couldn't do that? Well, I'm all for people taking risks to improve, so I guess they maybe should still try. But the game might just end up being crappy for it, if their best answer to how to make it work requires long periods of thumb-twiddling for most of the players. I guess what they 'should' do is keep trying different methods to be aware when that's happening and avoid it while still having it work.

On a different note, "how and how well players engage in various minigames" (not just "convince me", but "play 20 questions with the GM", learn about an NPC rather than just "roll diplomacy", and so many others) has, I admit, begun to become a concern, and a balance concern. Still, player differentiation via "just presses game buttons" vs "thinks outside the box" is a feature, not a bug, it's the game operating as designed IMO. So I agree in the general case that it's something to watch for, but the specific case is IMO one the GM should generally already have balanced for before the game starts.

I mean, I'm definitely usually on the side of player skill over character skill, but I want that to be player skill with respect to the game world, not player skill with respect to manipulating me or other players IRL. Realizing that this NPC is being portrayed as shy and can therefore be steamrolled IC, great. Playing a game of chess IRL with the GM to emulate playing chess with Death for your life after the rules say you'd otherwise die, why not - its explicitly invited there, neat flourish. But, say, realizing that the GM is shy and using that to steamroll them and get them to make rulings in your favor, not great unless the GM and players were really clear that they consented to that kind of thing.

Vahnavoi

2024-05-23, 05:08 AM

Ionathus

2024-05-23, 08:10 AM

Out of curiosity, why is it always the DMs fault? Can player's be at fault? What is an example of a player being at fault?

It's the DM's fault in this case because the DM is in charge of setting DCs and ruling what is or isn't possible. If hitting the dragon with a grappling hook wasn't possible from the start, that's fine, but it's the DM's job to communicate that. This DM sent the player on a wild goose chase, knowing that their goals were impossible, instead of stating that outright so the player could do something productive with their turns instead.

It's a matter of time and place, cool things during narrative time, like I don't know, put explosives in the elevator such that when it's called it blows up? cool beans! do it again! It's cool moment where planning and thinking results in a good time.

Ignoring the rules within the space where they are most-defined? (ie: combat) You unbound my action from the framework that exists, why are we pretending to play (whatever system), if the desired outcome is freeform cooperative worldbuilding?

I'm fairly certain there's some version of this sentence in every edition of D&D:

Actions in Combat
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
Improvisation is codified in the rules.

Also, you'll notice that my original examples were all about how a DM can use the existing rules and framework to rule fairly on improvised actions. e.g. a PC wants to accomplish something that's part of a Battle Master maneuver? Using that maneuver as a baseline template gives me a reference point for damage, effect, save DC, and duration. I can buff or nerf the RAW ability based on mitigating circumstances (examples: "Would the PC be proficient at this?" "Does the target have any disadvantages?" "Is this the first time the PC has tried this action?" "Given how big this creature is, what would a falling bookcase do to it?")

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-23, 08:30 AM

Additionally, an opposed check involves two dice. Rolling a 20 on one isn't a guarantee that that side will win if the other side has a better modifier. This is also far from the only reason why a natural 20 isn't an automatic success, in 5e or any other edition. Good point.

Chapter 9 in the second D&D DMG on my shelf goes from pages 51 to 79. You'll have to be more specific. The first D&D DMG on my shelf doesn't have numbered chapters. My point to you was that you are making an overly broad assertion that simply isn't true for the current edition. Had you bothered to be specific (I am very familiar with past editions, thanks) rather than painting with a broad brush, I'd not have responded.
I find your penchant for D&D bashing to detract from threads.
Why not accentuate the positive?

I've been playing over 30 years And I started in 1975. So what?
I've seen D&D played a variety of ways and style over multiple editions, to include "kill them all/total clear" styles. That is one style of many. Some of my favorite D&D sessions ever were "can you survive to level 4 or 5 and earn the right to join the thieves guild" (back when GP = XP) in the City State of the Invincible Overlord. In groups of two or three we did our best to make it from 0 to a level where the thieves guild would accept us, and no few of us died. The emphasis was absolutely NOT on killing, though we had a few combats. (and as fragile as thieves were then, we lost a few here and there).

Not sure how you glean from my reply to you that I think that you are lying about your experience (I see no reason to do that) but for you to extrapolate as a fact something that is anecdotal (your experience) is incorrect.

Have I misunderstood you? Do you still play D&D 5e? From previous posts, I was under the impression that you had stopped since you have found other games more appealing.

NichG

2024-05-23, 09:50 AM

@NichG: regarging social strategies, what you describe sounds to me it exist at an intersection game theory, specifically extended (iterated) versus isolated equilibrium strategies, and the psychological concept of delayed gratification.

Your advocation for mutual trust etc. "vulnerable" social strategies is similar to building up the case for co-operation being an equilibrium strategy instead of defection in extended versions of games analogous to Prisoner's dilemma (etc.). So when we see a player (prematurely) defecting in such a game, we have to ask if the player is correctly processing the game as extended rather than isolated case.

This links to psychology of delayed gratification, since we have to consider the possibility that the benefits of defection (here, socially unwanted behaviour) are tangible, but the benefits of co-operation are not. That is, eating two candies at once has tangibly different feel from eating one candy now and another later - delayed rewards do not accumulate to match the same experience. In the same way, benefits of defection are obvious and capable of being experienced, while the benefits of co-operation are not and can not.

I'll continue the thought later.

There's an additional wrinkle in that actually detecting defection is not guaranteed here. E.g. think something like a cross between prisoners dilemma and a coordination game with asymmetrically costly communication. The agent who can inflict the cost has privileged information about whether the cost is paying for them to increase their score alone or whether the cost increases the group's score, and after the fact a single instance does not provide enough evidence for other agents to conclude one way or another conclusively.

So its more tragedy of the commons than Prisoner's Dilemma. Like, group game where everyone has a (hidden) need for a communal resource each round; if anyone doesn't take enough to meet their need, everyone takes a penalty. However, everyone gets bonus points themselves for taking more, and also the group as a whole or some designated referee for the round has the additional power to limit how much each person is allowed to take. The needs are random each round and the distribution is not the same for each player even though they are drawn from the same distribution of distributions. So in that case, how do you tell that your neighbor is taking more than they strictly need, and what do you do about it?

Vahnavoi

2024-05-23, 10:38 AM

NichG

2024-05-23, 10:54 AM

Ah, yes. I agree common land and tragedy of the commons are morr straightforward examples of extended social co-operation games. Good catch. I am less sure if your specific formulation, specifically the part about randomness, helps in approaching any solution, however. I still think the solution is most likely to be found in psychology of those who take too much or too little, which might not be random and might be stable on a metagame level.

Yeah, in reality the psychology is going to be more important than the abstracted game theory, because you and your players don't exist in the isolated universe of just your table interaction - every interaction with other people throughout everyone's life and in each context is going to create much stronger biases that people bring in with them, and often the 'exploits' are from people who notice more quickly than others that the context is different and adapt narrow behaviors for this specific context that wouldn't work in life in general...

Of course, if randomness here is supposed to stand for a referee having limited knowledge of their players, then I understand its inclusion, since it isn't given a referee has a clue of their players' psychology when they enter a situation.

Yeah, its because the referee has limited knowledge even after the fact, which is different than in the usual Prisoner's Dilemma case where you know you were betrayed. If a player says 'I don't understand this, I want to talk it out in detail' then you don't know if they actually don't understand it, or if they think by talking it out in detail they can influence you to rule differently, or even if they're pursuing some totally different goal like 'I'm bored with the actual game, so I'm going to entertain myself by getting into a one-on-one debate with the GM', etc. If as the GM you assume malfeasance, then your game as a whole suffers because that communication channel is a communal resource essential to the function of the game. But also if you assume that no malfeasance ever could occur then you're vulnerable to the exploit, and a player who takes advantage of that can make the game as a whole suffer for everyone else. And there's not usually going to be some smoking gun which is like 'aha, I caught you, you really did understand that', it's always going to be different shades of murky. You might think a player is messing around with you, but because everyone's brain is different they might just really not be getting something that is easy for you to get, and if you 'call them on it' then its just going to hurt feelings all around.

kyoryu

2024-05-23, 11:21 AM

Any tips for learning this skill, or for applying it to the issue at hand?

Yup.

Don't allow yourself the explanation of "they did it because they're dumb".

So, when someone does something that seems dumb, instead of going "they must be dumb!", ask yourself "huh, I wonder what they do or don't know that would make them think that's a smart idea? What would it take for me to think that was a good idea?" And if you can't think of anything, ask. But just disallowing "they're dumb" as an explanation goes a long way. They may also be working off of different principles.

There may be cases where that's actually true, but they're more rare than you think.

(The same goes for "they're evil".)

Ah, that was the trick: everyone in beekeeper circles does do it, because it's really effective with bees. Even if it's not effective as a general tactic against arbitrary monsters, it should be in this specific case. (carrying capacity and not murderhoboing all your foes I'm assuming are not facets you'd call out with a "guys, guys, no, that loophole breaks my game" response :smallamused:)

If it was as easy as you described, why hasn't every local lord set up that situation to get endless supplies of cash?

And again and again with the having the right mindest. :smallcool: You make it look easy.

Thanks. It's really as simple as "assume people are reasonable". Even when I disagree with people, I think they're reasonable. Sometimes they have unreasonable goals, but they're generally reasonable people.

And, to poke the thread topic directly, I'm not generally a fan of what the OP described as "you can, but you can't". I'd like to think that, had I been GM, I would have asked the OP to explain their reasoning, found the disconnect, and had a discussion to get the OP on the same page wrt modules, rails, and the style of game I was running (where outside the box actions need to be "beekeepers use smoke to make bees docile" level of supported exceptions in order to outperform standard inside the box actions, and standard inside the box nets are weak) - and that maybe that would have happened much earlier in the night than the dragon grappling incident.

Yup. Getting aligned on the mental map, and being clear about the game you're running. All good things.

Ionathus

2024-05-23, 11:55 AM

Don't allow yourself the explanation of "they did it because they're dumb".

So, when someone does something that seems dumb, instead of going "they must be dumb!", ask yourself "huh, I wonder what they do or don't know that would make them think that's a smart idea? What would it take for me to think that was a good idea?" And if you can't think of anything, ask. But just disallowing "they're dumb" as an explanation goes a long way. They may also be working off of different principles.

There may be cases where that's actually true, but they're more rare than you think.

(The same goes for "they're evil".)

So we've got the simplified version, called Hanlon's Razor: "don't assume evil when incompetence makes just as much sense," which is part of your bigger point.

Now you've added nuance to that Razor, does your version deserve a new, less simplified name? Kyoryu's 5-Bladed Ultra-Glide, perhaps? :smallcool:

Yup. Getting aligned on the mental map, and being clear about the game you're running. All good things.

Same. My best advice for most scenarios where DMs are uncertain is to ask the player. Which can be really hard! Players sometimes want to "reveal" their cool maneuver, and I don't want to step on that or take the wind out of their sails. But sometimes even if I *have* the players' trust that I won't sabotage their cool idea, they can still often be cagey about their intentions.

A DM friend of mine told me a story about being in a combat where a player kept being really weird asking about arbitrary distances, in a context that didn't really make any sense to him as DM -- he couldn't think of a reason the player would need that info, and kept trying to tease the player's "real" question out of him. The player, meanwhile, was waiting for the perfect opportunity to turn into a Giant Octopus and cause a shakeup in the battle, and didn't want to spoil that reveal.

My friend had to basically level with him and say "listen, I know you're building up to a cool thing and I don't want to step on it, but if you just tell me what you're trying to do or what details you need from me, I can probably make it happen for you this turn."

Quertus

2024-05-23, 09:49 PM

@NichG - In what is perhaps a hilariously unintentional parody of (the root cause behind) this thread, we seem to be horrifically out of sync. I've already found and commented on a few of these places (like how you went with "the GM has already decided how this will go down", whereas I didn't, which led to me not understanding your train of thought / conclusions in some of your statements).

As for the rest, rather than get lost in labyrinthine back-and-forth replies, I think I'll focus on one topic at a time, and limit it to those I can ostensibly tie back into the thread topic / diagnosis.

The only time that's real is real time. It's not good balance if player A gets to solve 1 problem and B gets to solve 1 problem and C gets to solve 1 problem if the game involved player A talking with me for 3 hours about solving their problem, B spent 5 minutes talking with me to solve theirs, and C spent 30 seconds. That means that players B and C spent most of the time sitting there watching me talk with A. Unless B and C really just want to watch (or, say, play games on their phones and hang out with friends but not actually play), that's bad. It's also an easy trap to fall into if, say, player A is the most passionately interested in the game while B and C are half checked-out even when they have stuff to do. Lean into that and A will think you're the best GM ever, and tell you that, and make you feel like the best GM ever. While B and C will be thinking like 'meh, I would have rather just sat at home'.

More and more I'm an anti-fan, to borrow Kyoryu's term, of niche protection in games. Better if everyone can in principle do everything and anything, but the game is such that there are personal decisions and goals and not just group decisions and goals. You can gain the power to duplicate items and so can the other three players, perhaps through different paths to power, but you choose to burn your own bodymass to do it (and therefore must be constantly looking for restaurants to bulk up at) while player B has to fuel it with gold from their merchant empire while player C is making contracts with the fae to do really weird stuff like swap two kids' shoes.

So, we're not in disagreement, especially wrt Time. In fact, earlier in the same post, I expressed full agreement about all the bad forms of niche-protection (granted, I didn't explicitly call out unequal spotlight sharing time, I just explicitly called out long spotlight periods, and attempted to implicitly call out unequal time with the Rogue going off and scouting for 2 hours (which relies on session length and party size for that to land correctly)). For reference, you were replying to,
So, if only 1 player connects with a particular subsystem, that's great! That makes it clear that that subsystem has built-in nich-protection for that player. Whether that subsystem is "runes", "combat", "talk to the nobility", "talk to <this PC>'s family", "interact with <that PC's love interest>", "investigation", "puzzles", "anything to do with religion", or what have you. That makes it really easy to balance the spotlight and ensure everyone gets a chance to shine.

What you're calling a problem I think of as part of the solution.

Granted, that mostly only works if you develop a playstyle optimized to make it a solution, in a group with enough common interests to make those the focus of the campaign - or at least the bulk of the time spent at the table during the campaign, which are not the same things. Otherwise, you can get Shadowrun thumb-twiddling.

In the line you dropped, which I bolded for emphasis, I mentioned how having such niche-protection (Imma learn how to spell some day) was mostly only useful when the bulk of time in the game was spent on shared endeavors.

For example, suppose Bob's dice have just hated him today, everyone's gotten a chance to shine except Bob, and today's also the day he discovered that his pet project wasn't gonna work (Tungsten doesn't have the right magnetic properties, whatever).

If there's an element you know only Bob will respond to, you can incorporate that element in order to give Bob their time in the spotlight, their chance to do something cool individually today.

Of course, if you're like me, and aren't one to change the Fictional Reality just to make a Player happy, you can still potentially use this tool, even if it is perhaps suboptimal compared to the above: say, discussing a little of Bob's downtime, or the party's progress on the thing Bob clearly cares more about, at the end of the session, leaving elaborating on that and the rest of downtime plans to e-mail. Something you can't do if it's a common interest, and Tony is just as likely to monopolize time discussing it if he happens to... you get the idea, right?

It's not about lengthy periods of time, it's about giving each player that moment in the spotlight (emphasis on "moment"), *if* "time in the spotlight" is something you explicitly want in your games. That's the variety of niche-protection / shine relationship I was advocating as a potentially good thing.

(And a clever reader may be asking, "how does this relate to the current thread, exactly?". Well, 2 small ways: the idea of different gaming styles, and my own admission of the existence of things I recognize as being potentially good (adding things to the game to increase player enjoyment) that don't match my style and I won't do, that may well parallel the OP's GM who may well just not do certain things. The trick is, which things will they just not do, vs which things do they lack the skills to do, but would if they could? And divining the difference takes more tact and skill than just asking, "are you a clueless noob, or are you just a ****?".)

Yup.

Don't allow yourself the explanation of "they did it because they're dumb".

So, when someone does something that seems dumb, instead of going "they must be dumb!", ask yourself "huh, I wonder what they do or don't know that would make them think that's a smart idea? What would it take for me to think that was a good idea?" And if you can't think of anything, ask. But just disallowing "they're dumb" as an explanation goes a long way. They may also be working off of different principles.

So glad I asked. That's so much simpler than any tool I'd come up with. And a great mindset.

If it was as easy as you described, why hasn't every local lord set up that situation to get endless supplies of cash?

Endless over an infinite amount of time, something something overharvesting, requires a specific opportunity, not something you can outsource to untrained peasants, and not a good Risk/Reward ratio for most people, to name a few? Heck, I probably wouldn't seek out the scenario to engage it, or necessarily think to handle it that way, but it's the scenario the GM prepared, and even the general outcome they explicitly called for, so I'm gonna squeeze those lemon-shaped bugs for their golden lemonade. :smallwink:

NichG

2024-05-23, 11:52 PM

Vahnavoi

2024-05-24, 03:10 AM

@NichG: I suspect many of these weird juxtapositions exists because a lot of tabletop players, despite repeatedly making collectivist-sounding statements, are dirty dirty individualist at heart. :smalltongue: Meaning, they can't actually find joy in group success or entertainment in another person being in the spotlight.

So, I find niche protection stems from that, when it is not just artefact of treating simultaneous actions sequantially. What I mean by that last part can be understood through music: in a band, every musician might be playing a different instrument, but it's the simultaneity of effort that creates the finished piece of music. Listening to every instrument separately im sequence isn't the same experience.

This relates to the earlier part about delayed gratification and two candies at once versus more candies over time. When a process forces breaking up simultaneous actions into a sequence, it changes what each participant is experiencing. The full experience cannot be recovered for any participant without doing some extra work to put the pieces back together. Since this payoff isn't obvious, it incentivizes participants to focus on the things that are: their own performance.

The corollary being that at least some people who want stronger niche protection, would be better served by more flexible game processes that are more amenable to simultaneous, separate and even independent actions. Or, put differently, they'd benefit more from everybody getting on stage at once and being in the same spotlight, rather than having more spotlight time just for them.

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-24, 09:56 AM

Jay R

2024-05-24, 10:36 AM

Me: I want to sink my grappling hook into the dragon's wings so it can't fly away.

GM: Shouldn't you just attack it?

Me: I want to make sure it can't get away or strafe us.

GM: You should really just attack it.

Me: (Supressing irritation; these kinds of exchanges have been going on all night) Advice noted. I throw my grappling hook.

Advice to player: The DM decides if it will work The DM has told you twice that it won't work. Believe him.

Advice to DM: TELL HIM WHY. "If it hooks (unlikely), and if the dragon tries to fly off, he will fly off. This will not stop it any more than it would stop an automobile. The dragon can carry you off, and it won't even slow him down."

If you think it's necessary, have him roll a very easy INT roll first.

GM: Ok. Roll to hit. (I roll and handily beat the dragon's AC.) Ok. Your grappling hook sticks in the dragon's wing. (Some rounds of combat pass, the dragon is severely wounded.) The dragon is going to take to the air and fly 200 feet away.

Me: I try to pull it back down.

How? Would you try to pull a helicopter or airplane down by pulling on a rope?

GM: Make a Strength check.

Me: (Rolls) Woohoo! Natural 20! That's 24 total.

GM: (Rolls behind screen; I suppose I cannot prove that the dragon didn't honestly roll higher, but I was suspicious). The dragon is too strong, and takes off anyway.

Advice to player: If you don't trust the DM, leave the game. Now. D&D is no fun without that trust.

Advice to DM: Why would the dragon roll against the grappling hook? It makes no difference to the dragon at all. Or is that roll just to save the player's life?

Me: I'm still holding the rope, right? If it takes off, I'm going with it.

Yup, you sure are. That's the only effect that the grappling hook could have had. So you are now hanging by a rope high in the air, in easy reach of dragon claws, with both your hands occupied. The dragon will either kill you or stay up in the air until you fall off and die. The DM saved your life -- poorly. And you're focused on the "poorly" part, rather than the "saved your life" part.

This is not a DM problem. This is not a player problem. This is a miscommunication between the two of you problem. The player is trying to do something that cannot work, and the DM told him so in DMspeak, rather than plain English.

In your words, the DM's position was, "You really can't". Some DMs think that advising you to do something else, rather than just saying, "That's not going to work," preserves player agency. Next time, trust the DM and fight the dragon like a fighter does. Or at least ask the DM, "Why?"

If the dragon notices ...

Love it!

Jason

2024-05-24, 10:45 AM

How? Would you try to pull a helicopter or airplane down by pulling on a rope?
A rope attached to a helicopter's rotor by a grappling hook probably would bring it down, and a helicopter trying to start up and fly away would have real problems with a hook and rope attached to its rotor.
That's how I see the "hook in a dragon's wing" working.

Quertus

2024-05-24, 11:11 AM

I really don't get why GMs want to play as coy as they do.

That’s a really good question I’ve been trying to answer for myself ever since you posted this.

Much like my Bakugo-adjacent demeanor, I could pull a “12 Angry Men” reference and claim it’s how I was raised. But that feels like a cop out, that it doesn’t explain why self-reflection never flagged it as an error and made it self-terminate.

The problem with analyzing this behavior is that there’s lots of little things tied into this one concept, like the little poem about where GM responsibility ends (at playing the PCs) -> “playing someone else’s character is bad; no risk of crossing anywhere near that line with ‘are you sure?’ tech”, or “Tradition!” / brand recognition (even around here, people know what those words mean; I can even use them irl when talking to coworkers or my kids about things outside the game and they’ll get it). Even things like “I ‘play to find out’, I hate spoilers -> don’t tell me what *would* happen unless it’s something my character definitely knows” gets relegated to being an excuse when I ask myself, “ok, but what if the character definitely *would* know?”, and I still want to prevaricate play it coy.

So why? What’s the deeper reason, the hidden core value that everything else is protecting? I considered, “I believe in letting people fail realistically rather than forcing success”, and even, “I’m just a **** who enjoys their suffering (and the lamentations of their women)”, and even the almost true, “I enjoy their triumph when they puzzle through something that was difficult for them to see, and the potential growth such hard-won victory might engender”.

That last one felt really close, so I explored it, and found, “I want them in the mindset to puzzle through things”. Again, while yes, that’s not only something I value but an important factor in player mindset when playing a game with me, it still didn’t ring true as the root cause.

But it felt the closest so far, so I started with that thought and that mindset, and slowly branched out from there, until I hit something I couldn’t work past, the immovable rock that weathered all “but what if…” storms, that may well be the foundation I had built upon.

I’ve pondered long and hard, and come to the tentative conclusion I’ve found my answer to that question. And the answer my surprise you (“you can’t handle the truth!”, my inner narrator is screaming).

So, why do I play it coy rather than give more explicit direction? What is the core reason, the true answer to that question? Afaict, the answer is “communication”.

Mmmmm… what?

Those puny little ants players outnumber us a hundred to one, and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food communication, it's about control communication.

*Ahem* let me try again: it’s not about server-based suck vs push communication (or whatever), it’s about real human 2-way communication.

Communication is a 2-way street. If only the GM is engaged in the communication process, it’s suboptimal. The reason I “play it coy” is because I want the optimal, I want the player to be an engaged part of a discussion. “Are you sure?” is reserved words to indicate “get in the right mindset, discussion begins now”.

And then I can say, sure, I haven’t given the player any spoilers you may not want, we can have this discussion on whatever terms we decide are best. And the player also knows both to put on their big boy wrt critical thinking and risks. But those are all secondary to the foundation of Communication.

Or so I think.

And sure, I don’t always get it right, and a less mature me might well have responded, “play your own character” to perfectly reasonable questions - I am a being capable of growth, after all, these changes happen.

But I think I’ve answered your question, at least as far as my personal reasons are concerned.

Beelzebub1111

2024-05-24, 11:27 AM

the ability of a grappling hook to "hook" a dragon's wing is part of the question. But let's say, miracle of miracles you manage to hook your rope around the dragon's wing. What are you imagining? the hook around the bone of the wing as if it were a ledge? Lodged into the membrane of the wing like a fishhook? Wrapped around the wings like a hogtie? How do you see that happening by throwing a grappling hook at it? For those that aren't aware a grappling hook is not made to imbed in lving things or hit things that can move, just thrown in the general direction of where a ledge might be and hope it catches on something.

Beyond that there is the entire process of unspooling the rope properly and making sure it can unfurl neatly is a bit more time and attention consuming than rushing to get it out of your backpack and throwing it with a wish and a prayer in under 6 seconds. Like this is something that basically cannot be done as described. Hence my suggestion of describing the whole act of dropping your weapons, retrieving the grapple out of your backpack, and setting it up taking a round before you throw it, to make sure the player things about the whole process of those improvised actions they take.

A pet peve of mine is when players don't think about where the stuff they carry is and they go "Oh, I have this item on my character sheet, I can use it" but then when I ask "where is it" it's always "on my belt" or "Hanging off the side of my backpack" and it gets to the point where player's adventurer packs are empty and everything is hanging off the side or in belts. It's funny, but it's also mildly annoying metagaming. I blame video games.

Talakeal

2024-05-24, 01:55 PM

Advice to player: The DM decides if it will work The DM has told you twice that it won't work. Believe him.

Advice to DM: TELL HIM WHY. "If it hooks (unlikely), and if the dragon tries to fly off, he will fly off. This will not stop it any more than it would stop an automobile. The dragon can carry you off, and it won't even slow him down."

If you think it's necessary, have him roll a very easy INT roll first.

How? Would you try to pull a helicopter or airplane down by pulling on a rope?

Advice to player: If you don't trust the DM, leave the game. Now. D&D is no fun without that trust.

Advice to DM: Why would the dragon roll against the grappling hook? It makes no difference to the dragon at all. Or is that roll just to save the player's life?

Yup, you sure are. That's the only effect that the grappling hook could have had. So you are now hanging by a rope high in the air, in easy reach of dragon claws, with both your hands occupied. The dragon will either kill you or stay up in the air until you fall off and die. The DM saved your life -- poorly. And you're focused on the "poorly" part, rather than the "saved your life" part.

This is not a DM problem. This is not a player problem. This is a miscommunication between the two of you problem. The player is trying to do something that cannot work, and the DM told him so in DMspeak, rather than plain English.

In your words, the DM's position was, "You really can't". Some DMs think that advising you to do something else, rather than just saying, "That's not going to work," preserves player agency. Next time, trust the DM and fight the dragon like a fighter does. Or at least ask the DM, "Why?"

Love it!

Great post. A+.

One thing it got me thinking about is the correlation between trust and fudging dice.

I don’t know… some of the best GMs I know fudge, as do some of the worst.

I don’t fudge at all (intentionally), but my players have near zero trust in me (or any other gm for that matter).

In the OPs case, it seems like the most likely case is that the GM was fudging to save the player’s life from their own poorly thought out plan. Which is kind of a lot of conflicting issues of trust and ethics.

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-24, 03:01 PM

For Jay R. +10.

A rope attached to a helicopter's rotor by a grappling hook probably would bring it down Wrong, if the rotors are already turning. It may or may not damage a blade enough to impair flying then the blades hit the hook and knocks it away.

The person holding the rope gets pulled into the air if it attached to the body of the helicopter. (skids, wheels door, external tanks, etc). Unless they let go.

If the rotors are turning, and something rotating catches the hook rather than knocking it away, the rope gets ripped from their hands of whomever tossed it up there - Or, they go on a real short, fast merry go round spin before being flung away - since they aren't strong enough to resist the acceleration.

, and a helicopter trying to start up and fly away would have real problems with a hook and rope attached to its rotor. Not in the scenario as described.

The rope/chain attached to a hard point on the ground? Yeah, dynamic tip-over could happen, or, the rope might break. Depends on the rope and the helicopter.

If the rope is flung while the rotors are stationary, the helicopter isn't ready to fly right away in the first place. Not the scenario as described.

Your comparison fails.

That's how I see the "hook in a dragon's wing" working.
Since a rotary wing aircraft and a dragon don't fly using the same mechanics (flapping wings and magic versus rotating wings and internal combustion or turbine engines) then no, not a useful illustration.

Now here's case where things can go pear shaped fast.

A grappling hook and attached to a rope tossed into the tail rotor (at flight rpm) such that it catches around the hub and starts beating things up. Could happen, there are some unusual helicopter crashes where stuff like that got caught in the tail rotor and made a mess of things.

But it isn't the person on the ground holding the helicopter doing that. It's other causes.

Beyond that, what kind of helicopter are you envisioning?
R22?
Huey?
Chinook?

Easy e

2024-05-24, 05:07 PM

I used to play it coy all the time, for the simple reason I didn't want to give away the game, but still wanted to sign-post danger.

Now, when players come up with things I did not expect, I ask, "Oh, tell me more?" Then I can correct misconceptions, decide if I want to go with it, etc. I need to know player intent before I can make a ruling. However, I tend to heavily favor a "Yes, and/Yes, but" approach to things.

icefractal

2024-05-24, 05:09 PM

Ok, there are several legit reasons why a GM could rule against this plan, but "realistically speaking, having a hook + weight on one wing wouldn't impede a dragon" is not one of them and it's aggravating me how much people are suggesting it.

Here's a simple exercise you can do:
1) Put a gallon container of water in a backpack and sprint while wearing it. Not so hard, right?
2) Now tie that container to one ankle with a 1-2' long rope and try to sprint. Preferably on grass so it won't hurt when you trip.

And a gallon container is underselling it, because this is a medium person holding a large dragon, only one size different. It should be more like 15-25 lbs to be equivalent.

Oh, and this is ignoring any pain that the hook would cause. Which is probably reasonable given how tough dragons are, but still another factor where the "ball and chain run" is easier if anything.

The part where the GM would be reasonable to say "nope" is the initial "hooking the grappling hook into the wing membrane" because that's effectively a called shot (not allowed by default) and implies physical injury (not a given if the dragon isn't even "bloodied" yet).

But the player's attempt isn't unreasonable either. The issue is that in most fiction involving dragons, they're treated as a "colossus" where you not only can but have to target specific body parts and "fight unfair" because just going up and brawling with it is suicide. But in D&D, dragons are just "a creature" and direct brawling is the normal method to fight them. So there's a disconnect.

lesser_minion

2024-05-24, 05:59 PM

If you, as the DM, have granted a roll for something, then you have also ruled that it is possible in your world, even if it could never happen in the real world.

I don't think that this DM was out of line to rule it possible by D&D physics. I'm not qualified to discuss the mechanics of real-world flight, but I'm pretty sure I could watch someone pull a stunt like this in a film, or even read it in a book, without automatically flagging it as bollocks, whether it was a dragon or a helicopter.

In the case of 5e specifically, I was also under the impression that dragon flight was literally one of the examples given for "magical, but not a magical effect".

Mordar

2024-05-24, 08:08 PM

How? Would you try to pull a helicopter or airplane down by pulling on a rope?

The Rock would. It seems like a not-absurdly super-hero kind of action. I don't think it is a D&D fit, but YMMV. At Med vs Lg I might be tempted to allow it, though.

Ok, there are several legit reasons why a GM could rule against this plan, but "realistically speaking, having a hook + weight on one wing wouldn't impede a dragon" is not one of them and it's aggravating me how much people are suggesting it.

Here's a simple exercise you can do:[SNIP]

But the player's attempt isn't unreasonable either. The issue is that in most fiction involving dragons, they're treated as a "colossus" where you not only can but have to target specific body parts and "fight unfair" because just going up and brawling with it is suicide. But in D&D, dragons are just "a creature" and direct brawling is the normal method to fight them. So there's a disconnect.

I think that dragon flight must be in part magical, so I think that complicates an otherwise reasonable argument.

That aside, we have to consider the physics on all sides, right? Where specifically, the hook catches, because that impacts the movement with the weight. The wing beat generates enough upward thrust to move the dragon (weighing what? Some resources say 1200-1800 pounds?)...so the initial beats before the (let's say) 300 lb warrior impacts the wing movement are unopposed. Does the warrior hang on to the rope when the first tension pull really hits? What is the impact of the initial spring (if necessary) from the legs? Lot of moving parts. Probably why I disallow for baseline D&D.

- M

Talakeal

2024-05-24, 08:35 PM

The Rock would. It seems like a not-absurdly super-hero kind of action. I don't think it is a D&D fit, but YMMV. At Med vs Lg I might be tempted to allow it, though.

There is no leverage though, strength literally doesn’t factor into it. It’s the equivalent of flying by picking yourself up.

Edit: Assuming the rope isn’t anchored against something. I could easily see the Rock doing this with an anchored rope, or with his bare hands like Captain America did in Civil War.

GloatingSwine

2024-05-25, 03:57 AM

If you, as the DM, have granted a roll for something, then you have also ruled that it is possible in your world, even if it could never happen in the real world.

Yeah, this is a microcosm example of the Pumpkin Incident (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?646557-Am-I-being-salty-about-nothing) where a DM didn't want to live with the consequences of saying yes earlier.

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-25, 11:57 AM

Yeah, this is a microcosm example of the Pumpkin Incident (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?646557-Am-I-being-salty-about-nothing) where a DM didn't want to live with the consequences of saying yes earlier. The way to handle the Pumpkin incident, as a player, is via role play, not complaining about it. Like this example in that thread

*standing in a chamber full of mangled bodies, one vampire thrall stands shuddering at sword point, whimpering:*
"Why are you dddoing this? What ddddo you wwwwant? Strahd is willing to give you anything!"
*splattered in gore, you reply, gravely voice and steely eyed:*
"I WANT my pumpkins back. WHERE ARE MY PUMPKINS?!"
*the thrall cowers from your rage* -" Puupuuu pumpkins? I ddon't know? we can ffffind some for you maybe? Strahd has extensive holdings..."
*deadpan stare*
"No. I want MY pumpkins."
"bbbuuut, we ccca cccan't!"
"Then what good are you to me?" *runs through the poor, stuttering thrall and watch as he spits up blood and falls, silently clutching the gaping wound as he bleeds out on the floor*
"We're coming for you Strahd, you son of a bitch..." A superior approach to hitting the internet and complaining.
The play's the thing.

Mastikator

2024-05-25, 12:08 PM

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-25, 02:44 PM

Also the dragon has claws and the rope is made of rope, I means seriously how hard is it for the dragon to just cut it. This idea is folly from the start ok I'll stop Players sometimes forget that monsters have agency also.

Mastikator

2024-05-25, 03:47 PM

Players sometimes forget that monsters have agency also.

You know what's really killing me about this thread? How is the dragon moving 200 feet into the air. In 5e young blue dragons don't have legendary actions, with dash it's maximum distance would be 160. In 3.5e it would be 150 (since dash action doesn't even exist as far as I can recall). Where does this 200 feet movement come from??? Is this some 4e insanity that I can't understand? Is it some thac0 infused nonsense that I would prefer not to understand?
How is the dragon moving exactly 200 feet? Pure DM fiat? Why isn't the DM reading the monster stat block? Is that why they're not cutting the rope?

--

Yeah this is stupid. The OP should be happy the DM didn't kill them for their stupid gambit IMO. But they are right to ask for better communication.

Metastachydium

2024-05-25, 03:56 PM

In 3.5e it would be 150 (since dash action doesn't even exist as far as I can recall).

(If our Blue Dragon is doing nothing else in the round, it can use the Run action to move upwards at a 45° angle, at quadruple speed for up to 300' covered in a single round; if it has the Run feat for some Reason, that's up to 375'; if it has the Run and Air Heritage feats, it can move as much as 450' that way. As for why 200' exactly… It may very well just choose to do that.)

GloatingSwine

2024-05-26, 06:03 AM

The way to handle the Pumpkin incident, as a player, is via role play, not complaining about it. Like this example in that thread

Yeah, but the way to handle it as a DM is not to generate Pumpkin Incidents by not standing by things you already said yes to.

The dragon has a grappling hook sunk into it, the Fighter is hanging on to the rope. The DM said yes to it, the DM's job now is to make it work. Maybe the dragon cuts the rope and the fighter really hopes he makes his death saves or the party catches up in time, maybe the fighter climbs along the rope and threatens to slash the dragon's wings to ribbons unless it lands, maybe he has to do that and now gravity is everybody's problem.

Catullus64

2024-05-26, 08:27 AM

The OP should be happy the DM didn't kill them for their stupid gambit IMO.

No? Even if I were to agree that it was stupid and should never work, I would have preferred death. I committed to my course of action, knowing that death was not an implausible outcome. If my character had died, it would have meant that my actions mattered, and it probably would have been spectacular to boot. As I said in my first post, I know that I am not owed success, but I do feel that I am owed not having my actions essentially negated.

Maybe there's the lesson: letting a PC die when you think their actions warrant it is often the kinder approach. Otherwise, you will damage their belief in the reality of the story, perhaps in a way that cannot be repaired.

Regarding movement speed, I don't know what number the DM said exactly, just that it was too far away for us to do anything. I don't remember any of the numbers involved in this incident precisely, except my Nat 20.

Talakeal

2024-05-26, 01:23 PM

Jason

2024-05-28, 10:43 AM

kyoryu

2024-05-28, 10:52 AM

Maybe there's the lesson: letting a PC die when you think their actions warrant it is often the kinder approach. Otherwise, you will damage their belief in the reality of the story, perhaps in a way that cannot be repaired.

Sure. But, I'd say that in general, the best way to handle that is to make very very sure, when appropriate (and try to make it appropriate), that players know when death is a likely result of actions they're about to make.

The players in an RPG need to feel like their decisions are meaningful or they will quickly loose interest in playing.

Whether their choices have good or bad consequences is less important than that there be consequences.

Certainly for some people. For other people, they're just along for the ride and more there to go through the GM's story.

But, yeah. I again think the best approach is to make sure people are forewarned of consequences in rough proportion to the severity of them when appropriate. But then follow through.

Mordar

2024-05-28, 11:59 AM

There is no leverage though, strength literally doesn’t factor into it. It’s the equivalent of flying by picking yourself up.

Edit: Assuming the rope isn’t anchored against something. I could easily see the Rock doing this with an anchored rope, or with his bare hands like Captain America did in Civil War.

Well, Rock did use a chain, it was a helicopter, and he held on to a truck with the other hand...

Depends on how hard and fast you can yank it. You can't weigh it down unless you're an elephant, but if you are Captain America you might be able to yank it really hard and cause it to swerve mid air. (or if you're Captain America and you do have leverage, you could hold it in place).

That said, the OP said they had a +4 to their strength, so they're not captain america. They're the rock. And the rock- cool and strong though he may be, does not pull down helicopters nor dragons with a rope.

Derail: Captain America *should* be the Rock. Super Solider made him peak human, not super-human. Stupid movies. Even the good ones.

So I'm torn a bit on the "let the PC die" only because of this - a player character death can often derail a game, and it is a decision that impacts not just the player of that PC but also the X other people sitting around the table for Y amount of time. Now, I don't think I would have played things like the GM in question, but unless this baby blue was a major element in the scenario I wouldn't have been too keen on "unnecessary" PC death. I know, terrible, right?

- M

Talakeal

2024-05-28, 12:16 PM

Well, Rock did use a chain, it was a helicopter, and he held on to a truck with the other hand...

That makes a bit more sense, assuming the truck was beyond the helicopter's lifting capacity.

Derail: Captain America *should* be the Rock. Super Solider made him peak human, not super-human. Stupid movies. Even the good ones.

I would say Dwayne Johnson is far from the strongest man who ever lived.

Of course, this is further obscured by "action movie physics" which don't always line up with reality.

Jason

2024-05-28, 12:33 PM

Certainly for some people. For other people, they're just along for the ride and more there to go through the GM's story.

But, yeah. I again think the best approach is to make sure people are forewarned of consequences in rough proportion to the severity of them when appropriate. But then follow through.

Which raises the meta-question, "is someone actually playing a role-playing game if all that is happening is that the GM is telling them a story?"

kyoryu

2024-05-28, 12:53 PM

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-28, 01:44 PM

Y
The dragon has a grappling hook sunk into it, the Fighter is hanging on to the rope. The DM said yes to it, the DM's job now is to make it work. Maybe the dragon cuts the rope and the fighter really hopes he makes his death saves or the party catches up in time, maybe the fighter climbs along the rope and threatens to slash the dragon's wings to ribbons unless it lands, maybe he has to do that and now gravity is everybody's problem. Also a good approach.

Jason

2024-05-28, 02:58 PM

I'd say decades of people playing linear adventure paths has strongly answered that in the affirmative.

To be clear, it's not my preferred style of play, but (for instance) the original DragonLance series is a classic for a reason. People enjoy them.
"It's a popular style," or "people enjoy it," doesn't really answer the question.

Mordar

2024-05-28, 04:35 PM

Which raises the meta-question, "is someone actually playing a role-playing game if all that is happening is that the GM is telling them a story?"

I'd say decades of people playing linear adventure paths has strongly answered that in the affirmative.

To be clear, it's not my preferred style of play, but (for instance) the original DragonLance series is a classic for a reason. People enjoy them.

"It's a popular style," or "people enjoy it," doesn't really answer the question.

I'll answer for me - Yes. Absolutely.

It is my general experience that those "along for the ride" are really accepting a smaller range of impact on the story than those that are looking to shape the story as a primary goal. They don't want to be told what they do, what they say, etc...but they are happy following the general line of the work the GM has done to lay out an adventure.

The decisions a "rider" makes changes the outcome. The dice a "rider" throws changes the outcome.

- M

kyoryu

2024-05-28, 04:37 PM

"It's a popular style," or "people enjoy it," doesn't really answer the question.

It really kinda does. If a significant percentage of people in the hobby are doing this, and describe it as roleplaying, it kinda feels to me like it really is.

This kind of linear gaming is a significant amount of the hobby, if not even a majority.

glass

2024-05-29, 06:52 AM

I'll answer for me - Yes. Absolutely.

It is my general experience that those "along for the ride" are really accepting a smaller range of impact on the story than those that are looking to shape the story as a primary goal. They don't want to be told what they do, what they say, etc...but they are happy following the general line of the work the GM has done to lay out an adventure.This highlights an important point that I feel often gets lost in discussion of such things - linearity is a continuum not a binary.

Just because people don't mind or even prefer having less impact on the game's progression than they would in a wide-open sandbox, that doesn't mean they want to have no impact.

Vahnavoi

2024-05-29, 07:46 AM

Which raises the meta-question, "is someone actually playing a role-playing game if all that is happening is that the GM is telling them a story?"

"It's a popular style," or "people enjoy it," doesn't really answer the question.

If you want an answer beyond that, it's "yes, because games themselves define how they are played".

If a game says you participate in it by kicking a ball, kicking a ball is playing the game. If a game says you participate by listening to a game master's story, listening to the game master's story is playing the game. Simple. The loaded part of your question is "if all that is happening", since most of the time, it isn't all that is happening.

For the sake of the argument, if it is all that is happening, then it's still playing a game, but it is not roleplaying. Reason being, a game itself can define how it is played, but roleplaying has a definition outside of that, which involves a person changing their behaviour to match a role - specifically, in context, the role of another person. Simply being a passive listener is not sufficient.

---

@glass: if you want to talk about continuums of game structures, then the measures you'd want to use are game tree branching, divergence and convergence. A strict linear game is one where the game tree does not diverge - in practice, even most linear adventures are not this strict, each segment (such as a combat encounter) has its own subgame with its own game tree, but all branches of the subgame converge on one of two outcomes (namely, total failure which ends the game, and the planned continuation segment).

But you are certainly right that there are a lot more game structures than just linear and sandbox.

Easy e

2024-05-29, 09:23 AM

It really kinda does. If a significant percentage of people in the hobby are doing this, and describe it as roleplaying, it kinda feels to me like it really is.

This kind of linear gaming is a significant amount of the hobby, if not even a majority.

To tie back to the categories you showed earlier, wouldn't this be a Trad/Neo-Trad game style?

The DM has authority and the sets the plotline seems to fit into this linear style. If that is accurate, than this linear story-telling approach is one of the "oldest" styles of role-playing?

kyoryu

2024-05-29, 10:08 AM

To tie back to the categories you showed earlier, wouldn't this be a Trad/Neo-Trad game style?

The DM has authority and the sets the plotline seems to fit into this linear style. If that is accurate, than this linear story-telling approach is one of the "oldest" styles of role-playing?

I'd say that's a very accurate statement.

I'd also say it's the first really contentious point. While I think the Classic style in the article was a mix of about three different actual styles, the "trad" style and its linear approach and focus on the GM's story really shifted a lot of emphasis in how the game was played. People that were more into the more player-agency-focused styles of Classic (they all had that in common) often really didn't like the highly linear play of the trad style, leading to a lot of pushback.

I mean, that describes me! And I even wrongly pushed back on "narrative" games assuming they were the same until someone (on this forum!) corrected me by telling me about a Fate game that they had played where, yeah, they won in the end, but at the cost of the party basically getting obliterated.

So I get the "it's not really roleplaying" argument, as it's kind of an anti-style for me. I'm just not going to tell a significant percentage (again, possibly a majority) of the hobby that they're having. BadWrongFun.

This highlights an important point that I feel often gets lost in discussion of such things - linearity is a continuum not a binary.

Just because people don't mind or even prefer having less impact on the game's progression than they would in a wide-open sandbox, that doesn't mean they want to have no impact.

I think there's actually one fairly binary thing, though it can vary a bit over the course of the campaign. And that's basically can the players meaningfully do something (in terms of scenes/encounters) that the GM hasn't prepared.

In a lot of games, that's no. There may be branches that the GM has prepared. There may be the ability to go to different locations to do different GM-prepared things. You might be able to futz about doing unprepared stuff, but you'll be subtly (or not-so, most often) guided back to the prepared content.

It's understandable - that's how published modules kind of have to work by definition.

It's not how I run games. I don't know what the players are going to do, and how they're going to handle the situation. I don't know where they're gonna go, and what they're gonna do.

Because of this, I can take two groups through a given starting situation and have them have completely different experiences.

Without that ability, you can still have an impact on the game/plot - but it's going to be more like what you'd see in a BioWare CRPG. The details will differ, and how certain things were handled may differ, but everyone is going to have the same basic experience. If two people play Mass Effect 2, for instance, they might have different experiences on the suicide mission, but they will both play through the suicide mission.

Jason

2024-05-29, 10:17 AM

kyoryu

2024-05-29, 10:21 AM

My point is that players who want a game will generally want to have their decisions effect the outcome.

I think it depends on what decisions the players care about.

In more railroady games, I find a lot of players care more about combat and building their characters than making story-level (where do we go now?) type decisions. That might be because they think that's what RPGs about, it might be they find the openness of a higher agency game intimidating, or it might be just that those are the things they enjoy.

But "how do we tackle the problem, where do we go, what do we do?" aren't the only questions/decisions in an RPG.

My preference (and yes, it's a value judgement, so it's subjective) both when running and when playing, is that player decisions should matter. I don't enjoy games that depend either too much or too little on randomness.

If the GM is just telling me a story and there's not much that I can do to change it, I'll go read a good book rather than continue to pretend that I'm influencing the story.

Yup, me too. I'm just not gonna BadWrongFun people that have different preferences.

The whole point of a role-playing game, for me, is the ability to interact meaningfully with the story being told.

Same here! That's why I don't play or run linear games (okay, sometimes I'll play a linear game with friends, but then the emphasis is on the friends, and I kinda hold my nose). But, again, I'm not going to go so far as to say people playing RPGs in a non-preferred way aren't playing RPGs.

Talakeal

2024-05-29, 11:45 AM

Yes, the crux of the question is "if all that is happening is that the GM is telling a story,"; and yes, most of the time that isn't all that is happening - even in the most "railroady" games the players are still making occasional decisions. It's just that the results are largely trivial.

My point is that players who want a game will generally want to have their decisions effect the outcome.

My preference (and yes, it's a value judgement, so it's subjective) both when running and when playing, is that player decisions should matter. I don't enjoy games that depend either too much or too little on randomness.

If the GM is just telling me a story and there's not much that I can do to change it, I'll go read a good book rather than continue to pretend that I'm influencing the story.

If the game is too random, with the dice or card order or whatever random element having much more of a role in determining victory or defeat than my choices, then I'll choose to go play a game that I can effect more directly.

The whole point of a role-playing game, for me, is the ability to interact meaningfully with the story being told.

I won't tell "spectators" that they're doing it wrong, I'll just tell them it's not my way.

In my experience, a lot of the conflict in RPGs comes from players who have a very particular thing they find fun in RPGs, and if the game they are in doesn't focus on that particular facet, they say they would prefer to go read a book / watch a movie / play a video game / play a board game, etc.

For example, my infamous buddy Bob really only finds RPGs fun as an advancement / power fantasy, and any aspect of the game that doesn't revolve around either powering up his character OR showing off said power loses his attention, and if the game offer rapid character progression he always threatens to go read a book about rapid power progression in games instead.

Vahnavoi

2024-05-29, 12:14 PM

My point is that players who want a game will generally want to have their decisions effect the outcome.

You can just simplify that to "some people want their decisions to affect outcomes". The word, "game", is not pulling any weight there, since the word is broad enough to cover activities where the only meaningful decision a player makes is whether to participate or not.

kyoryu

2024-05-29, 12:18 PM

You can just simplify that to "some people want their decisions to affect outcomes". The word, "game", is not pulling any weight there, since the word is broad enough to cover activities where the only meaningful decision a player makes is whether to participate or not.

Also there was a whole thread on how you can have levels of impact in different aspects of a game - builds, "what do we do now" decisions, etc.

Some people are happy to have impact on the "where do I move in combat" level, or "how do I build my character", or the kind of side-effect stuff we see in BioWare RPGs, etc.

Some people want to know that they can solve a larger problem their way, and that there isn't a set of scenes for them to go through.

Some people don't even want a problem to solve, they just want a world that they can pursue their own goals in.

Mastikator

2024-05-29, 02:17 PM

No? Even if I were to agree that it was stupid and should never work, I would have preferred death. I committed to my course of action, knowing that death was not an implausible outcome. If my character had died, it would have meant that my actions mattered, and it probably would have been spectacular to boot. As I said in my first post, I know that I am not owed success, but I do feel that I am owed not having my actions essentially negated.

Maybe there's the lesson: letting a PC die when you think their actions warrant it is often the kinder approach. Otherwise, you will damage their belief in the reality of the story, perhaps in a way that cannot be repaired.

Regarding movement speed, I don't know what number the DM said exactly, just that it was too far away for us to do anything. I don't remember any of the numbers involved in this incident precisely, except my Nat 20.

You are correct. I concede the point. The DM should've respected the player's choice and their agency, and killed their character. But they should also have just said "hooking a grappling hook to the dragon's wing is not going to stop it from flying" If the player wanted to go for a jolly ride on a hostile flying dragon they have no-one to blame but themselves. But I feel they should've been told at least once.

kyoryu

2024-05-29, 02:32 PM

You are correct. I concede the point. The DM should've respected the player's choice and their agency, and killed their character. But they should also have just said "hooking a grappling hook to the dragon's wing is not going to stop it from flying" If the player wanted to go for a jolly ride on a hostile flying dragon they have no-one to blame but themselves. But I feel they should've been told at least once.

Exactly. Tell them the obvious consequences of their action, then follow through on that.

Jay R

2024-05-29, 06:17 PM

No? Even if I were to agree that it was stupid and should never work, I would have preferred death. I committed to my course of action, knowing that death was not an implausible outcome. If my character had died, it would have meant that my actions mattered, and it probably would have been spectacular to boot. As I said in my first post, I know that I am not owed success, but I do feel that I am owed not having my actions essentially negated.

Maybe there's the lesson: letting a PC die when you think their actions warrant it is often the kinder approach. Otherwise, you will damage their belief in the reality of the story, perhaps in a way that cannot be repaired.

Ah – got it. I was more accurate than I knew when I wrote, "The DM saved your life -- poorly. And you're focused on the 'poorly' part, rather than the 'saved your life' part."

I addressed this in my personal "Rules for DMs" document (along with the pumpkins):

50. For the players to be free to be clever, they must also be free to be stupid. For them to be free to make the right decision, they must also be free to make the wrong decision. Either way, it’s the freedom to make the choice for their PCs.

a. If you carefully prevent them from making any mistakes, then you’re the one who’s playing the characters.
b. This can require careful judgment calls. Find a way to prevent them from making TPK-causing errors based on no information. Don’t bother to keep them from losing their pumpkins.

gbaji

2024-05-29, 10:27 PM

I've been guilty of the "Are you sure?" as a DM.
It's much better to be clear-don't ask "Are you sure?" tell them "If you do [ACTION], [CONSQUENCES] will happen (potentially on a failure, potentially no matter what you roll)," and then ask them if they're sure.

Lay out the stakes. Make it clear.

Yup. I think the biggest issue is that the DM, instead of laying out the action and consequence relationship, just kinda went with vagarities instead. The DM clearly knew that this would not work the way the player was envisioning things (or had clearly decided it would not work, which is not exactly the same process, but the same outcome). The DM therefore really needed to tell the player this.

I don't put a lot of stock in slippery slope arguments when it comes to GMing. "If we let players think creatively once, soon they might want to think creatively all the time!" should be a message of encouragement, not a dire warning.

Embrace the chaos, I say. If I wanted to play a perfectly tactical and rules-as-written game with no edge cases or Rule Of Cool, I'd pick up Gloomhaven or take out a second mortgage and finally get into Warhammer 40K. I play D&D and other TTRPGs like it precisely because having a human at the helm allows for creativity.

Eh... I do agree mostly with this. However, I will present a counter:

I have on some occasions encountered players who just absolutely insist on ignoring everything on their character sheet, and every standard rule in the game, to try to go "outside the box" to do everything. I mean, on the one hand, I applaud out of the box thinking. But in some cases, it can become quite obvious to the GM that the player is just trying to do a form of min/maxing. In some cases, it's that they dumped their combat abilities during build to focus on other things, and want to be effective in combat by inventing new rules on the fly. "Well. I didn't put any ranks in weapons, nor take any feats that add damage or to-hit or whatever, but I'll come up with a clever way to use the environment to kill the monsters anyway, and then complain that the GM isn't respecting my agency if it's not allowed to succeed".

I think someone pointed out earlier that some games include rules for stunts/whatever, and if that's what you want to play, then play those games (and pay the costs for those abilities). Some games don't really have much in that regard. So yeah. If the expected course is to use your spells/abilities/weapons to damage the enemy, and that's how you win or lose, then maybe that's what you should be focusing on as a player? That's not to say that the occasional really clever thing should not work. But if the player is trying to always use some kind of clever trick to succeed instead of stats/skills/spells/items/abilities on their character sheet, then the pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction. The stuff printed on your sheet really should matter. If it doesn't then why is it there? And it's absolutely not fair to the players who did spend the points/whatever putting stuff on their sheets, if the GM is just going to hand the same level of effectiveness in return for a what is essentially just words spoken at the table by the player.

There's obviously a balance to this. Finding the right one can be tricky sometimes though. And yeah, it's heavily game system dependent.

This is not a DM problem. This is not a player problem. This is a miscommunication between the two of you problem. The player is trying to do something that cannot work, and the DM told him so in DMspeak, rather than plain English.

I don't think it's so much that it cannot work at all (though, as a couple people have pointed out, grappling hooks are not really designed to sink into dragon scale covered wings), but that the result of the proposed action is not likely to be what the player wants.

You are absolutely correct that this is entirely about miscommunication. And it's the GMs job to ask the player what they intend, and to clarify what the GMs perception of that action and its likely outcomes are before the player commits to the action itself.

Oh, and this is ignoring any pain that the hook would cause. Which is probably reasonable given how tough dragons are, but still another factor where the "ball and chain run" is easier if anything.

Again though, the problem is one of game mechanics. We're talking about a game where the same dragon is continuing to function normally while being hacked repeatedly by weapons actually designed for doing maximum damage in a combat situation to targets which are wearing heavy armor. So the idea that the hooks from a grapple are somehow going to hurt *more* than the other sources of damage it's taking is kinda strange. And yes, also a game system that doesn't have rules for "you managed to entangle its legs/arms/wings with something and here's the effect". And also a game system (heck genre) where dragons kinda have to be assumed to use some kind of supernatural <something> to fly in the first place. So trying to apply "real physics" in the situation is questionable already. If we were really judging the ability of a dragon to take off based on the lift characteristics of them flapping their wings, then they can't actually fly anyway, whether they've got a grapple with some extra weight hanging off of it or not. So how exactly do you decide that "by putting this much weight/resistance on the wing, it'll prevent the dragon from flying"?

There are game systems that do have hit locations (including wings), and rules for incapacitating or immobilizing those locations. You want to do this, play those games. If you're playing D&D? The DM wasn't entirely wrong with the suggestion of "just attack the freaking dragon" (poorly communicated IMO, but fundamentally correct).

I'll also take a big swing here and suggest that there was some subtext to the actual situation at hand. Since the OP said that he was already annoyed from previous stuff in the session, my guess is that this actually had less to do with the mechanical resolution or GM/Player interaction, and more with a player becoming frustated at what appeared to be obvious railroads in the adventure the GM was playing. The only reason for even thinking of "grapple the dragon to prevent it from flying away" is if the player is annoyed at multiple GM run monsters flying/running away. So the player decided that "this encounter is going to be the GM having the blue dragon harass us for a few rounds, and then fly off to become a recurring annoyance to us, so I'm going to see if I can prevent that".

I could be wrong here, but if I'm not then this speaks to larger problems. The first one being that the GM is running a game that the players (or at least one player) doesn't actually want to play. Some GMs think that "I'll have the NPCs be super smart and use hit and run tactics and it'll be great!". Protip: It pretty much never is. Yes. A string of suicidal lemming NPCs is not great fun either, but if I have to choose between the two as a player? I'll pick the lemmings. At least I'm accomplishing something, even if it's not terribly thought provoking or engaging.

No? Even if I were to agree that it was stupid and should never work, I would have preferred death. I committed to my course of action, knowing that death was not an implausible outcome. If my character had died, it would have meant that my actions mattered, and it probably would have been spectacular to boot. As I said in my first post, I know that I am not owed success, but I do feel that I am owed not having my actions essentially negated.

Maybe there's the lesson: letting a PC die when you think their actions warrant it is often the kinder approach. Otherwise, you will damage their belief in the reality of the story, perhaps in a way that cannot be repaired.

As long as the player knows the degree of plausibility of death to a reasonable accuracy, I agree. But... this kinda does require that the GM ask some questions and make sure to tell the player what's going on and what the likely outcomes will be before accepting the action.

I've found in my time GMing that the number of times a player proposed something that I knew would likely result in the death of their character but the player didn't realize this and would change their decision if/when they do, vastly outnumbers the times they they did know this and were just plain ok with the death happening.

So yeah. I'm always going to err on the side of making absolutely certain the player knows the score before proceeding in these kinds of situations. If they do, and they choose "nearly certain death", then that's their choice and a reflection of their agency. But if they don't, and their character dies with them wondering why it happened (and likely being very upset about it), then that's not their choice, and it's me bypassing their agency.

Catullus64

2024-05-29, 11:24 PM

I have on some occasions encountered players who just absolutely insist on ignoring everything on their character sheet, and every standard rule in the game, to try to go "outside the box" to do everything. I mean, on the one hand, I applaud out of the box thinking. But in some cases, it can become quite obvious to the GM that the player is just trying to do a form of min/maxing. In some cases, it's that they dumped their combat abilities during build to focus on other things, and want to be effective in combat by inventing new rules on the fly. "Well. I didn't put any ranks in weapons, nor take any feats that add damage or to-hit or whatever, but I'll come up with a clever way to use the environment to kill the monsters anyway, and then complain that the GM isn't respecting my agency if it's not allowed to succeed".

I think someone pointed out earlier that some games include rules for stunts/whatever, and if that's what you want to play, then play those games (and pay the costs for those abilities). Some games don't really have much in that regard. So yeah. If the expected course is to use your spells/abilities/weapons to damage the enemy, and that's how you win or lose, then maybe that's what you should be focusing on as a player? That's not to say that the occasional really clever thing should not work. But if the player is trying to always use some kind of clever trick to succeed instead of stats/skills/spells/items/abilities on their character sheet, then the pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction. The stuff printed on your sheet really should matter. If it doesn't then why is it there? And it's absolutely not fair to the players who did spend the points/whatever putting stuff on their sheets, if the GM is just going to hand the same level of effectiveness in return for a what is essentially just words spoken at the table by the player.

I'm not saying I'm that guy.. but I'm not not that guy. I make no secret of the fact that I find winning via the character sheet alone to be unsatisfying. If an encounter is low-stakes or easy, I stick with my abilities, and I try to make an honest assessment of if an improvised action is actually more effective than just pressing my buttons, but I will definitely persist in trying to do stunts even in the face of clear GM opposition. It's a confrontational streak, I admit it, and in the long run the only solution is to communicate with GMs that I really value that sort of gameplay, and that if all I wanted from RPGs was social interaction + tactical use of pre-programmed abilities, I'd be playing World of Warcraft.

I don't think it's so much that it cannot work at all (though, as a couple people have pointed out, grappling hooks are not really designed to sink into dragon scale covered wings), but that the result of the proposed action is not likely to be what the player wants.

You are absolutely correct that this is entirely about miscommunication. And it's the GMs job to ask the player what they intend, and to clarify what the GMs perception of that action and its likely outcomes are before the player commits to the action itself.

This is exactly why I always try to phrase actions like this in terms of intention. It's to signal to a GM that if they don't think what I'm attempting to do is feasible, or works the way I think, now's the time to nip it in the bud.

Again though, the problem is one of game mechanics. We're talking about a game where the same dragon is continuing to function normally while being hacked repeatedly by weapons actually designed for doing maximum damage in a combat situation to targets which are wearing heavy armor. So the idea that the hooks from a grapple are somehow going to hurt *more* than the other sources of damage it's taking is kinda strange. And yes, also a game system that doesn't have rules for "you managed to entangle its legs/arms/wings with something and here's the effect". And also a game system (heck genre) where dragons kinda have to be assumed to use some kind of supernatural <something> to fly in the first place. So trying to apply "real physics" in the situation is questionable already. If we were really judging the ability of a dragon to take off based on the lift characteristics of them flapping their wings, then they can't actually fly anyway, whether they've got a grapple with some extra weight hanging off of it or not. So how exactly do you decide that "by putting this much weight/resistance on the wing, it'll prevent the dragon from flying"?

There are game systems that do have hit locations (including wings), and rules for incapacitating or immobilizing those locations. You want to do this, play those games. If you're playing D&D? The DM wasn't entirely wrong with the suggestion of "just attack the freaking dragon" (poorly communicated IMO, but fundamentally correct).

Wanting to run a game where players mostly stick to strictly rules-defined actions is legitimate, but I think it's also fair to say that, for a Roleplaying Game, it's off-center in terms of what people expect. It's the sort of thing that I think is the exception rather than the rule, and something the GM should explicitly lay out before play.

As for how you decide things when bets are off regarding physics, I think a good GM should ask "Will the overall verisimilitude of this game be damaged if this action succeeds?" Which is a very different question from "Would this action actually succeed?" Lots of unrealistic things, no magic involved, fly in RPGs and narrative fiction in general, because they're close enough to how things actually work that they won't strain suspension of disbelief unless dwelt upon.

I'll also take a big swing here and suggest that there was some subtext to the actual situation at hand. Since the OP said that he was already annoyed from previous stuff in the session, my guess is that this actually had less to do with the mechanical resolution or GM/Player interaction, and more with a player becoming frustated at what appeared to be obvious railroads in the adventure the GM was playing. The only reason for even thinking of "grapple the dragon to prevent it from flying away" is if the player is annoyed at multiple GM run monsters flying/running away. So the player decided that "this encounter is going to be the GM having the blue dragon harass us for a few rounds, and then fly off to become a recurring annoyance to us, so I'm going to see if I can prevent that".

I could be wrong here, but if I'm not then this speaks to larger problems. The first one being that the GM is running a game that the players (or at least one player) doesn't actually want to play. Some GMs think that "I'll have the NPCs be super smart and use hit and run tactics and it'll be great!". Protip: It pretty much never is. Yes. A string of suicidal lemming NPCs is not great fun either, but if I have to choose between the two as a player? I'll pick the lemmings. At least I'm accomplishing something, even if it's not terribly thought provoking or engaging.

Yes and no on the subtext you're reading. Yes, I was definitely feeling railroaded by that point, and frustrated by a GM who seemed incapable of handling things going even a tiny bit off-script. I won't pretend there was no spite in my actions. No, enemies fleeing or using hit-and-run wasn't a specific problem. It simply occurred to me that mobility was one of the dragon's most significant advantages, and I wanted to hamper that.

I agree that lots of GM attempts at 'smart tactics' are simply irritating. Typically, they only seem 'smart' because they depend upon the monsters acting with the GM's omniscient knowledge and ability to view a fight from a zoomed-out view, and have very little to do with how a thinking creature might actually be able to make choices in the heat of battle. As such, they tend to come off more like cheap tricks than clever fighting, and to feel more 'game-y', not less.

Ionathus

2024-05-30, 09:14 AM

Eh... I do agree mostly with this. However, I will present a counter:

I have on some occasions encountered players who just absolutely insist on ignoring everything on their character sheet, and every standard rule in the game, to try to go "outside the box" to do everything. I mean, on the one hand, I applaud out of the box thinking. But in some cases, it can become quite obvious to the GM that the player is just trying to do a form of min/maxing. In some cases, it's that they dumped their combat abilities during build to focus on other things, and want to be effective in combat by inventing new rules on the fly. "Well. I didn't put any ranks in weapons, nor take any feats that add damage or to-hit or whatever, but I'll come up with a clever way to use the environment to kill the monsters anyway, and then complain that the GM isn't respecting my agency if it's not allowed to succeed".

I see what you're saying, but the counter you're offering is really just an inherent risk of every aspect of every TTRPG. "Someone could be a jerk doofus about [mechanic]" is the omnipresent threat all DMs have hanging over their heads like the Flametongue Greatsword +2 of Damocles, regardless of the context. Of course bad-faith minmaxers would try to take advantage of it. Bad-faith minmaxers try to take advantage of everything. I don't think that's a compelling reason to not do it.

I think someone pointed out earlier that some games include rules for stunts/whatever, and if that's what you want to play, then play those games (and pay the costs for those abilities). Some games don't really have much in that regard. So yeah. If the expected course is to use your spells/abilities/weapons to damage the enemy, and that's how you win or lose, then maybe that's what you should be focusing on as a player? That's not to say that the occasional really clever thing should not work. But if the player is trying to always use some kind of clever trick to succeed instead of stats/skills/spells/items/abilities on their character sheet, then the pendulum may have swung too far in the other direction. The stuff printed on your sheet really should matter. If it doesn't then why is it there? And it's absolutely not fair to the players who did spend the points/whatever putting stuff on their sheets, if the GM is just going to hand the same level of effectiveness in return for a what is essentially just words spoken at the table by the player.

There's obviously a balance to this. Finding the right one can be tricky sometimes though. And yeah, it's heavily game system dependent.

This is a more convincing argument to me. You're right: the other players at the table have played by the rules to make characters that work in the system, and they shouldn't have their choices invalidated by the Quirky Free Spirit playing Calvinball next to them. I've played in games where other PCs got a total B.S. boon from the DM to become just as good as my PC at my PC's area of specialty. That sucked really bad.

My only solution is a soft-skills one, which I know is going to be frustrating. It's a version of that same thing upthread: try to translate the Calvinball player's intentions into in-game, probably-unskilled improvised actions. If they keep trying to throw chairs at enemies, give them a feat like Grappler or Brawler (or enhance it, because improvised weapons still suck at least in 5e) as a quest reward. Give them a few Battlemaster Maneuver dice to play with. Give them the Minor Illusion cantrip. Whatever leans into their creativity the most while still limiting the impact of their shenanigans. My general approach is "come up with an effect that a PC 2-3 levels lower could accomplish by RAW with their class features or a lower-tier spell slot, make them make a check for it, and give it to them if they succeed (with consequences for failure and, sometimes, success also :smallamused:)" That way, you're letting them do something that you know works within the rules, and they can feel like their choices actually matter, but they aren't going to outshine the PCs who did the work and played by the rules.

What usually happens in my experience is that you wind up with two or three Tacticians at the table, people who have built a specific character build and want to use it strategically and with relative optimization. And then you usually have one or two people who are not and never will be Tacticians (which is not a moral failing on their part!) and their greatest joy is in doing the thing that's visually or narratively resonant for them. Drop a bookcase on the enemy. Startle the cattle into stampeding towards them. Etc. The fun part is that they don't care about optimization -- if they did, they would be fine-tuning a character build instead -- they care about the "story" of the fight. So as long as their actions impact the narrative of the combat, they're usually happy if it's less "effective" than the things on their character sheet would've been.

Easy e

2024-05-30, 09:46 AM

One of my biggest critiques of D&D is that anything that is not a button push is unoptimized, and with most DMs a really bad idea to try. You will fail. However, if you agree to play D&D you are agreeing to some level of button-pushing is optimal built-in, respect that.

My new DM question for myself and when I am a player is..... "What makes this better than playing Baldur's Gate at home?"

If I don't have a good answer, my follow-up question is..... "What can I personally do to make this a better experience than Baldur's Gate at home?"

My final question is..... "Who should I talk to before I go about trying to implement that better experience because I don't want to stomp all over the game?"

If I find out that my actions might endanger the continuation of the game or group, I consider if that is a risk I am willing to take. Since I generally play with the same long-running folks, I will often just suppress my urges and just go-along-to-get-along until the next campaign starts. Thankfully, most of our campaigns are quick 2-5 month deals.

ciopo

2024-05-31, 04:58 AM

Wanting to run a game where players mostly stick to strictly rules-defined actions is legitimate, but I think it's also fair to say that, for a Roleplaying Game, it's off-center in terms of what people expect. It's the sort of thing that I think is the exception rather than the rule, and something the GM should explicitly lay out before play.
I strongly disagree, it's implicit that if you sign up for a game with rules, then you are agreeing to and wanting to play by those rules. The default assumption and expectation is that you will follow the rules, and if anything it's on you to explain your intention to ignore the rules. What else do you think a recruitment post about "we'll play [system]" is, if not to play [system]?

If what "you" want to do is freeform improv theater, you should go do freeform improv theater, not sign up for a game with rules then be salty that it's not freeform improv theater.

To me (and by extension players like me), the most fun is from finding and using "cool rules interactions", not the collaborative narration of the situation at hand.

Not that it's BadWrongFun to most enjoy the collab narrative, of course, but if that's your favourite sauce, there are systems that cater to you/your kind of player better than the systems that cater to me/my kind of player

icefractal

2024-05-31, 05:46 AM

Mastikator

2024-05-31, 05:53 AM

I strongly disagree, it's implicit that if you sign up for a game with rules, then you are agreeing to and wanting to play by those rules. The default assumption and expectation is that you will follow the rules, and if anything it's on you to explain your intention to ignore the rules. What else do you think a recruitment post about "we'll play [system]" is, if not to play [system]?

If what "you" want to do is freeform improv theater, you should go do freeform improv theater, not sign up for a game with rules then be salty that it's not freeform improv theater.

To me (and by extension players like me), the most fun is from finding and using "cool rules interactions", not the collaborative narration of the situation at hand.

Not that it's BadWrongFun to most enjoy the collab narrative, of course, but if that's your favourite sauce, there are systems that cater to you/your kind of player better than the systems that cater to me/my kind of player

For D&D 5e freeform improv theater is allowed by the rules.

Your character can do things not covered by the actions in this chapter, such as breaking down doors, intimidating enemies, sensing weaknesses in magical defenses, or calling for a parley with a foe. The only limits to the actions you can attempt are your imagination and your character’s ability scores. See the descriptions of the ability scores in chapter 7 for inspiration as you improvise.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.
The key takeaway is that the DM should tell the player if an action is possible. "I want to put a grappling hook on the dragon's wing" is legal by the rules as written, but the second part "so that it won't be able to fly" is entirely within the DM's purview. In this case they decided it ain't gonna happen.

To me that the DM said "you should just attack" reeks of "are you sure you want to do that" coyness. Don't treat players like mushrooms when it comes to their actions and outcomes. For players subject to to coy DMs, ask them to elaborate. "Why should I just attack? Is this basically impossible even if I roll a natural 20?"

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-31, 07:56 AM

One of my biggest critiques of D&D is that anything that is not a button push is unoptimized, and with most DMs a really bad idea to try. You will fail.
That has not been my experience. I guess you play/played with some poor DMs. What you describe there is how a CRPG works.

Jason

2024-05-31, 09:34 AM

To me that the DM said "you should just attack" reeks of "are you sure you want to do that" coyness. Don't treat players like mushrooms when it comes to their actions and outcomes. For players subject to to coy DMs, ask them to elaborate. "Why should I just attack? Is this basically impossible even if I roll a natural 20?"
Yes the DM was too coy, but from what I can see from the original post the player also wouldn't have accepted "it's impossible" as an answer. There was a clash of personalities going on.

ciopo

2024-05-31, 10:03 AM

There's a hell of a lot of excluded middle ground between "only rule-based actions are possible" and "freeform improv theatre".

I like it when most things can be handled by the rules. But to say nothing outside them is possible? That's competing unfavorably with CRPGs (graphics, sfx, automatic and instant number handling) and board games (no prep needed, usually better balanced).

Eh, my stance on this is more along the lines of "if one thing outside the rules is possible, then any thing outside the rules is possible", which deteriorates, thus my absolutist take on it.

If a scene is narrative, cool beans on the shenanigans, og nuts with your imagination, I will enjoy the mayhem alongside you!

if a scene is within the design space where the rules exists with the most crunch for the system at hand ( generally: combat, my frame of reference is 3.5 D&D and pathfinder 1st edition, as those are the ones I enjoy the most ), then even small improv is on the same order of magnitude of upending the game completely, because it's arbitrary what is okay and what is not once you get out of hte bounds of established rules.

especially in fantasy games, because magic could become the ultimate do-anything

What I mean is, to make an extreme example, within the frame of reference of 3.5/pf1e rules. the statement "I'll try to put my hand to close the mouth of that enemy spellcaster, to prevent him from casting!" (not something within the rules, could probably be approximated with a grapple) and the statement "I use my arcane/divine powers to erase that enemy from existence" (I guess it could be a wish? whatever) are equal. That they are different in scope of impact is not relevant in their classification of "I'm askign the dm to ignore the rules and fiat whatever my imagination cooked up"

BRC

2024-05-31, 10:04 AM

I think there's a point where, as a GM, you gotta just bribe your players.

Ideally, you avoid a situation where neither success or failure have any meaningful impact, but sometimes you can't avoid it.

Sometimes if I approve something and don't really think it through, and can't think of a good way to make it work mechanically or story wise or whatever, you just gotta give the player some reward for trying and succeeding at something creative and clever. If your game has meta-resources, then handing out one of those is usually a good option.
"The Dragon tears free from your grappling hook with a cry of pain and flies away, but you know you've injured it". Hand over an Inspiration, and maybe make a note that the Dragon's wing is badly injured from tearing itself free of the grappling hook, so if they re-encounter it it's fly speed is reduced.

For In-Combat stuff in D&D, I like the concept of Rogue Equivalent Damage. If the PC's do something creative that would deal damage, like collapse an archway on top of an enemy or something, a decent go-to formula is ((Level/2)+3)D6, which comes out as a bit better than a Rogue getting a sneak attack (sneak attack being half level, +1d6 for weapon damage, +1d6 to account for stat bonus, and finally +1d6 so that this is always a reward). It's a nice go-to if your player does something clever in combat and you can't think of anything bespoke to grant them, possibly because you didn't think they would succeed.

kyoryu

2024-05-31, 10:14 AM

There's a hell of a lot of excluded middle ground between "only rule-based actions are possible" and "freeform improv theatre".

I like it when most things can be handled by the rules. But to say nothing outside them is possible? That's competing unfavorably with CRPGs (graphics, sfx, automatic and instant number handling) and board games (no prep needed, usually better balanced).

Right, that's the job of a GM - to determine what does make sense.

My favorite RPGs are ones where the rules are handled pretty concretely, but they leave a lot of room for GM ruling inside of them.

Like, in Fate, if you want to do something, the game doesn't really say if it's possible or not - that's up to the GM and the table. It doesn't really say what the result of a success is. What it does do is give you a framework to make those rulings and a mechanical way to determine between possible outcomes.

Because of that, I can run it with the rules that are there on 100% of the time, which also provides a good degree of transparency.

Eh, my stance on this is more along the lines of "if one thing outside the rules is possible, then any thing outside the rules is possible", which deteriorates, thus my absolutist take on it.

That..... seems quite extreme. I've never seen a game degenerate to that level.

I mean, that's one of the jobs of the GM - to determine what is and is not possible in the game world, right? And to have some say in adjudicating actions.

It's totally cool if you want a game to be entirely rule-based, for whatever reason, and to zero out the GM ruling space. I think it's a fairly minority position within the hobby, and I really don't think it's cool to BadWrongFun people with more moderate views, or to assert that anything besides something that strict of an interpretation is "freeform improv theater".

ciopo

2024-05-31, 11:01 AM

That..... seems quite extreme. I've never seen a game degenerate to that level.

I mean, that's one of the jobs of the GM - to determine what is and is not possible in the game world, right? And to have some say in adjudicating actions.

It's totally cool if you want a game to be entirely rule-based, for whatever reason, and to zero out the GM ruling space. I think it's a fairly minority position within the hobby, and I really don't think it's cool to BadWrongFun people with more moderate views, or to assert that anything besides something that strict of an interpretation is "freeform improv theater".
I'm taking an extreme stance for the sake of the argument, I don't ascribe BadWrongFun to wanting "cool scenes", in spite of the rules.

The extreme example is extreme on purpose, the point I'm trying to make, and probably failing to articulate, is that those two examples for sure differ in scope, but are within the same category of "screw the rules, this'd be cool!". Asking the first and asking the second are samey Mother may I

I feel I'm probably not expressing myself well, because I don't want my games to be entirely rule-based. I'm trying to say there is the narrative and there is the mechanicals. I prefer crunchier games, I am good at knowing the rules, it's not unusual for me to speak up about "there is a rule for that", and I enjoying watching shenanigans when more creative players than me "do stuff".

Even if it happens in the crunchier parts (in other words when we're "using turns"), but I am a creature of math and models. Ruling become rules and that's fine to a degree, I'll take the precedent created and codify it in my mind , perhabs incorporating it in my tactics, perhabs not (you "grapple at a distance" with a grappling hook because oyu want to prevent the dragon from flying away? I might or might not start throwing grappling hooks at people to grapple them at a distance if that's something tactically sound at the moment. To reuse the cyberpunk example: if oyu make a ruling about reloading weapons as a move action because player A wants to reload his pistol, then I will workshop my weapon selection around the asusmption that I can reload the rocket launcher as a move action)

but I dislike it in the crunchier parts, because the game goes from "test build-making prowess" to "sweet-talk the GM into allowing stuff" and there are better system for that than 3.5/pf1e

I'm not using freeform improv theather as a derogatory :( it is what it feels like to me when we go out of bounds, so to say

Easy e

2024-05-31, 11:08 AM

That has not been my experience. I guess you play/played with some poor DMs. What you describe there is how a CRPG works.

I wouldn't say they were poor. They just tried to align the rules to the situation in the way the thought the rules were supposed to work. I guess I would say, they did their job.

- Pull a rug out from under a foe? There is a rule for prone, so I will apply it.
- Use a whip to entangle a foe? There are entangling rules so I will apply it.
- Try to lasso and trip someone? There are rules for being tripped so I will apply it.
- Toss a guy into the acid? There are rules for it, so I will apply them.
- Cut a rope so the chandelier falls on the foe? There are rules for improvised attacks, so I will apply them.

It wasn't the DMs fault that they applied the rules as they interpreted them, and I would have had more impact if I had just hit the attack button on my sheet. Sure I could do something different other than "roll to hit with my sword", and I did but their was no real "pay-off" for doing it other than my own personal satisfaction for making something fun or different happen.

Darth Credence

2024-05-31, 11:27 AM

I wouldn't say they were poor. They just tried to align the rules to the situation in the way the thought the rules were supposed to work. I guess I would say, they did their job.

- Pull a rug out from under a foe? There is a rule for prone, so I will apply it.
- Use a whip to entangle a foe? There are entangling rules so I will apply it.
- Try to lasso and trip someone? There are rules for being tripped so I will apply it.
- Toss a guy into the acid? There are rules for it, so I will apply them.
- Cut a rope so the chandelier falls on the foe? There are rules for improvised attacks, so I will apply them.

It wasn't the DMs fault that they applied the rules as they interpreted them, and I would have had more impact if I had just hit the attack button on my sheet. Sure I could do something different other than "roll to hit with my sword", and I did but their was no real "pay-off" for doing it other than my own personal satisfaction for making something fun or different happen.

Your initial comment said that anything under a button push is unoptimized - by which I take it to mean in terms of combat as "does less damage than something that is on my sheet". If that's incorrect, let me know what you mean by unoptimized.

Here, you say that "toss a guy in acid" has rules, and the DM just applies them. For that particular case, this is correct, there are defined rules. The DMG calls out that "stumbling into a vat of acid" is 4d10 damage. So if the DM played by the rules as listed, and your initial complaint is what I think it is, it seems that you are saying that you can regularly do better than 4d10 damage without using any resources other than your action. Is this correct? If so, it may be that things not on your character sheet are unoptimized because you've done some optimization on your character sheet that results in regular 4d10 damage.

What about pulling a rug out from under your foe and prone rules do you think should be different? If I were running a game and someone tried to pull a rug out from under a foe, I would have them make an athletics(str) check against the foe's athletics or acrobatics ability, and if they succeed, they pull the rug and the person falls to the ground prone. Basically, it would be the same mechanics as a shove, but could be done at a distance. Is there something more you were hoping for, and why would you think it would do more?

The same can be applied to all of these - yes, there are rules in the game that can be used to give an idea of how to run something not explicitly covered. Consistency is prized by many, and these help things remain consistent. I guess without knowing what you thought should happen, we cannot know whether you had bad DMs, unreasonable expectations, or just mismatched expectations.

Easy e

2024-05-31, 02:47 PM

Your initial comment said that anything under a button push is unoptimized - by which I take it to mean in terms of combat as "does less damage than something that is on my sheet". If that's incorrect, let me know what you mean by unoptimized.

Here, you say that "toss a guy in acid" has rules, and the DM just applies them. For that particular case, this is correct, there are defined rules. The DMG calls out that "stumbling into a vat of acid" is 4d10 damage. So if the DM played by the rules as listed, and your initial complaint is what I think it is, it seems that you are saying that you can regularly do better than 4d10 damage without using any resources other than your action. Is this correct? If so, it may be that things not on your character sheet are unoptimized because you've done some optimization on your character sheet that results in regular 4d10 damage.

What about pulling a rug out from under your foe and prone rules do you think should be different? If I were running a game and someone tried to pull a rug out from under a foe, I would have them make an athletics(str) check against the foe's athletics or acrobatics ability, and if they succeed, they pull the rug and the person falls to the ground prone. Basically, it would be the same mechanics as a shove, but could be done at a distance. Is there something more you were hoping for, and why would you think it would do more?

The same can be applied to all of these - yes, there are rules in the game that can be used to give an idea of how to run something not explicitly covered. Consistency is prized by many, and these help things remain consistent. I guess without knowing what you thought should happen, we cannot know whether you had bad DMs, unreasonable expectations, or just mismatched expectations.

I don't want to derail the thread on this topic, perhaps a new thread would be in order.

No, I am not complaining about there being rules. However, why would I ever use them? That is more of what I am complaining about. There is no reason to do anything in a cool or cinematic way because it will probably hinder you more than help.

I can use my action to maybe, possibly make someone prone until their turn which gives others an advantage to hit them. Or I could just hit them myself with something from my sheet. If I am really special, that hit may also do some special effect too! The better option 9 times out of 10 is to just hit them myself and push the button. Therefore, why even bother with the other stuff that may not be on my sheet?

So, that leads to my point. Combat can get reductive really fast if the best thing to do all the time is just to press X twice. I would argue the rules promote that level of button-pushing. That is not a problem by default. In my personal opinion, it just gets boring kinda' quickly and leads to samey combats. The DM may have all sorts of cool stuff to interact with and do in a scene, but why bother with it?

KorvinStarmast

2024-05-31, 03:29 PM

It wasn't the DMs fault that they applied the rules as they interpreted them, and I would have had more impact if I had just hit the attack button on my sheet. Sure I could do something different other than "roll to hit with my sword", and I did but their was no real "pay-off" for doing it other than my own personal satisfaction for making something fun or different happen.
That isn't what you said that I responded to. Your claim that there was an auto fail is what I was responding to.

One of my biggest critiques of D&D is that anything that is not a button push is unoptimized, and with most DMs a really bad idea to try. You will fail.
You have now changed your story.

gbaji

2024-05-31, 04:28 PM

I see what you're saying, but the counter you're offering is really just an inherent risk of every aspect of every TTRPG. "Someone could be a jerk doofus about [mechanic]" is the omnipresent threat all DMs have hanging over their heads like the Flametongue Greatsword +2 of Damocles, regardless of the context. Of course bad-faith minmaxers would try to take advantage of it. Bad-faith minmaxers try to take advantage of everything. I don't think that's a compelling reason to not do it.

Right. I'm just saying that this is a technique that could be used by said jerk doofus, so GMs need to be aware of it. There are there broad categories of folks who may do stuff "outside the rules":

1. Young players, or those not familiar with the system. I give these the most leeway. Maybe there is a rule for doing exactly what they want to do, using a skill that exists, but they don't possess (or even know about). This becomes a teaching moment, but I'll usually allow them to do "something", but maybe not a terribly effective something. And yeah, I may also gently nudge them towards using something their character has available that works in the situation.

2. Experienced players, who know the system well, and are trying to game a bit more out of it. If something on their sheet works well enough, but using it in combination with some clever "stunt" will work better, they'll take the best outcome possible. I usually push back on these, unless what they came up with really really works in the situation at hand. Some of these players may actually be "jerk doofuses". But honestly? Some are just great players approaching things from the pov that "may as well try. Worse that happens is the GM says no".

3. Whole range of players who know the system, know the GM, and have a good sense of when such stunts will be thematically appropriate and when they will not. Obviously, this can absolutely include folks in the first two categories as well. Some times, the out of the box idea is just so clever and so "right", that you go with it, and allow it to work well because it is just that great of an idea. And yes. There is a set of players who do have a great feel for this. They know when trying something would be pushing things (and frankly as a GM being constantly pushed on stuff like this gets uncomfortable sometimes), and when it will not be and are able to consistently pull off such clever ideas in the game (these players are the best!).

But yeah. I always try to balance the "rules as written" with what alternatives may work in a given situation. I do tend to balance thematic stuff with effective stuff though. It can be problematic for a game (especially a crunchier game) if out of the box stuff is consitently both more fun/interesting *and* more effective than the normal stuff on the sheet and in the rules. There is an effort overhead for GMs to stop, consider an out of the box thing, and then make a ruling (and the less rules guidance the harder this is). You don't want to discourage clever ideas, but you also don't want your game to become an endless series of players trying to resolve every situation with a clever idea when they've got the skills/spells/items on their sheets to do it already.

One of the more annoying things about ST:TNG is the sheer number of times the Enterprise encounters some vastly less powerful ship, but instead of... you know... just firing phasers, they stop to have a discussion about what to do, and must come up with some clever way to overload their shield emmitters, or destabilize their power systems, or whatever. Like... I get this from a writing pov, but there's a time when that makes sense, and the other 90% of the time, when you're in a galaxy class starship, and they're in a garbage scow, and maybe you should just act like it.

As a GM I sometimes get equally annoyed when players do this. It's like "Um... There's an orc in front of you, attacking you. You have a sword and are like 5 levels higher than him. You honestly don't need to position him so you can reflect the sunlight off your shiney medallion around your neck to distract him and give you an advantage in the fight. Just. Swing. Your. Damn. Sword.". Of course, in actual play, I'd be like "Yes. You can do that. You'll need to make a perception roll to determine the correct angle of the sun, then spend a rounds actions positioning yourself and the orc, and a tactics roll to move in such a way as to ensure the orc is in the proper position as well, then <some kind of agility/tool-use skill roll> to properly manipulate the medallion. Oh. And you'll be using one hand on the mediallion, so you'll have to fight one handed. But once you do that, I'll treat the enemy as blinded, and give you <some minor plus to hit and AC>.

It doesn't take too long for players to figure out that, while if situations are already correct for doing something tricksie will work well, trying to create those conditions and use them all the time likely will not.

I like it when most things can be handled by the rules. But to say nothing outside them is possible? That's competing unfavorably with CRPGs (graphics, sfx, automatic and instant number handling) and board games (no prep needed, usually better balanced).

Right. But in this case, a combat with a dragon can already be handled by the rules. It has a stat block. You have armor weapons, spells, skills, etc, in a game system that is combat focused more than most even. And I'm pretty sure D&D has a number of spells and feats and special class abilities within it that do allow specifically for doing things like slowing down foes, or preventing them from flying/escaping. So allowing anyone with a grappling hook to do the same seems problematic (at least in D&D).

It's not that there's nothing allowable outside them, but you do have to balance the cost of things in the game that do what the player wants to do, versus allowing them to do so without having or using those in-game things. I tend towards allowing such things (or at least attempting such things) but making sure that they are never as effective as the same sort of thing (in this case, preventing a dragon from being able to fly away) by someone else, who picked a class, and feats/spellls/skills/whatever that actually do that exact thing.

There's a fine balance between rewarding players for clever thinking, and devaluing alternative PC build/exp choices. Many games have a host of ancilliary/utility skills/abilities/spells that most players don't take because they're situational. As a GM, you need to make sure that when those situations do come up, the fact that no one in the party took those skills, abilities, or spells is noticed. You can (and should) allow for ad-hoc attempts to replicate those things, but need to make sure that they are never as effective or successful as if someone had the actual correct <whatever> available.

It wasn't the DMs fault that they applied the rules as they interpreted them, and I would have had more impact if I had just hit the attack button on my sheet. Sure I could do something different other than "roll to hit with my sword", and I did but their was no real "pay-off" for doing it other than my own personal satisfaction for making something fun or different happen.

This I totally get behind too. Sometimes, the players are just having fun, and don't care as much about effectiveness. Absolutely allow that. If the player in my earlier example says "sure. I'll do that, cause it'll be cool!", then that's fun and cool, so we do that. I totally want to encourage my players to have fun, and do fun things. But (IMPO), this works better if they are choosing to do that for the sake of the fun of it, and not because they think/know I'll reward them and make that fun/cool thing more effective. Because that's what can lead to the min/max style play I spoke of earlier. And that ceases to be fun, but now becomes the new expecation of the player(s), and is not actually fun for anyone anymore.

No, I am not complaining about there being rules. However, why would I ever use them? That is more of what I am complaining about. There is no reason to do anything in a cool or cinematic way because it will probably hinder you more than help.

You kinda answered your own question (just in reverse). If doing something in a cool or cinematic way does result in better results than using the standard tools/rules of the game, then "why would I ever use them" (the standard tools/rule)? I will attempt to come up with something clever every single combat round if the GM will give me a better outcome/effect than just using my normal stuff. Now, we're back on the bridge of the Enterprise, figuring out how to come up with some trick to win, rather than just firing the ample number of phasers we have at our disposal.

I can use my action to maybe, possibly make someone prone until their turn which gives others an advantage to hit them. Or I could just hit them myself with something from my sheet. If I am really special, that hit may also do some special effect too! The better option 9 times out of 10 is to just hit them myself and push the button. Therefore, why even bother with the other stuff that may not be on my sheet?

So, that leads to my point. Combat can get reductive really fast if the best thing to do all the time is just to press X twice. I would argue the rules promote that level of button-pushing. That is not a problem by default. In my personal opinion, it just gets boring kinda' quickly and leads to samey combats. The DM may have all sorts of cool stuff to interact with and do in a scene, but why bother with it?

Well. This is very game system dependent though. There are game systems that have status effects, and have skills/abilities/whatever that create them, and do the sorts of things you speak about. One PC, instead of just hitting for damage, uses an ability that knocks the opponent prone, which then gives his fellow party members a big bonus (and puts the opponent at a big disadvantage). That's a viable choice when/where it makes sense. But it's often something which is also on the character sheet. Allowing someone to do the same thing, but without having spent the points to have the ability, now screws over those who take it, right?

But yeah. In games that don't have them, I'll come up with something if that's what the player wants to do. And while "pulling the rug to make my opponent fall down" isn't going to be as effective one on one as just hitting him (you spend an action knocking him down, he spends one getting up), it may (situationally) be very very effective when considering the effect on others as well.

But if it's just "me and the opponent"? A stunt move, if it's not something well defined in the rules and something the character has available, should never be as effective as using the things the character does have available. Otherwise, you are run the risk of damaging the balance of the game.

Well.... Unless it's just really really cool (which brings me back to my starting point). There were no direct rules for "I'm going to pick up a serving platter from the banquet table we're sitting at, and fling it at the assassin about to stab our host in the back and try to knock his blade out of his hand before he can strike". But it was situational (for magic reasons, the assassins invisibility only worked against the hosts at the party, and not the PCs, so they saw the cloaked figures walking up behind them and then ominously drawing blades dripping with poison and thus had time to act), and it fell well into the "cool as hell" category as well. And heck. I don't even remember so many years later what the exact roll I used was, nor even if it succeeded (almost certainly didn't actually hit the assassin's blade or hand), but in this case, it still surprised the assassins, and surprised the hosts (and made them start ducking for cover from the crazy person flinging platters around), so it foiled the auto-backstabs the assassins would otherwise have gotten. Mission accomplished.

But yeah. Same thing in a one on one combat situation? Probably not going to be terribly effective (but may still be tons of fun). Your fighting here, holding your weapons. The enemy is there, also holding weapons. Sure, you could pick up a platter and throw it at him. And it may force him to duck or something, or use a defensive action, but you also used up an attack action doing it (and even if you hit, that platter ain't going to do as much damage as your weapon). So... situational. Most of the time, especially in a combat sitation, just fire the darn phasers.

Jay R

2024-06-01, 01:45 PM

One of my biggest critiques of D&D is that anything that is not a button push is unoptimized, and with most DMs a really bad idea to try. You will fail.

I've only been playing since 1975, with fewer than two dozen DMs. I don't have enough data to make any statement about "most DMs", and I doubt if you do either. But your statement about "most DMs" doesn't match my experience. The majority (not all) of my DMs have been perfectly OK with making judgment calls, and players coming up with something that isn't in the rules is often (not always) the best approach.

In any event, I don't care what "most DMs" do. Besides being impossible to know, it is irrelevant. I only care what my current DM does.

From my personal "Rules for Players" document:

3. Every aspect of a game funnels through the DM’s thoughts. Believe in the DM’s judgment, trustworthiness, competence, and imagination or don’t play.

a. You don’t need a DM who will agree with you. You need one whose rulings will be reasonable, fair, and honest – even when you think they are wrong.
b. When playing with a new DM, you cannot necessarily know. But assume good judgment, trustworthiness, competence, and imagination until proven otherwise.

4. The idea that appeals to the DM will work better than the idea that does not appeal.

a. Just because it worked for one DM doesn’t mean it will work with another. Different games are different.
b. There is a legal maxim: Any lawyer knows the law; a good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge. Similarly, any player knows the rules; a good player knows fantasy literature. A great player knows the DM.

If the things you come up with aren't working, then you need to look again at rule 4.b, and then try to learn what does work for that DM.

However, if you agree to play D&D you are agreeing to some level of button-pushing is optimal built-in, respect that.

Not quite. When you agree to play D&D, you agree to accept that DM's approach, whatever it is. See rule 3, above.

One further comment, from the same source:

16. Not all games are for all people. Some DMs aren’t right for some players, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If you are in a game you don’t enjoy, and the DM won’t change after your questions, just leave.

a. If that game is not a good game for you, then that fact will never change. That doesn’t mean that you are wrong, or that the DM is wrong – just that you shouldn’t play in that game.
b. Don’t confuse “I’m annoyed with this ruling” with “I’m not enjoying the game.” No resemblance. If you can enjoy the game as it is, then have fun!
c. There’s no value in complaining about the DM while you’re leaving. Complaints have value only if they might change things for you. Thank her for running the game, and move on.

[These rules are written for myself, for the way I play games. I am not saying that anybody else “should” play a game this way. These rules exist to help me be consistent, effective, and immersive.

Anybody else is free to use them as guidelines, to modify them, to use some but not others, or to ignore them altogether, as seems best to you. We don't all agree on how to play a game, and there's nothing wrong with that.]

KorvinStarmast

2024-06-01, 01:51 PM

I've only been playing since 1975, with less than two dozen DMs. I don't have enough data to make any statement about "most DMs", and I doubt if you do either. But your statement about "most DMs" doesn't match my experience. The majority (not all) of my DMs have been perfectly OK with making judgment calls, and players coming up with something that isn't in the rules is often (not always) the best approach.

In any event, I don't care what "most DMs" do. Besides being impossible to know, it is irrelevant. I only care what my current DM does.

From my personal "Rules for Players" document:

3. Every aspect of a game funnels through the DM’s thoughts. Believe in the DM’s judgment, trustworthiness, competence, and imagination or don’t play.

a. You don’t need a DM who will agree with you. You need one whose rulings will be reasonable, fair, and honest – even when you think they are wrong.
b. When playing with a new DM, you cannot necessarily know. But assume good judgment, trustworthiness, competence, and imagination until proven otherwise.

4. The idea that appeals to the DM will work better than the idea that does not appeal.

a. Just because it worked for one DM doesn’t mean it will work with another. Different games are different.
b. There is a legal maxim: Any lawyer knows the law; a good lawyer knows the exceptions. A great lawyer knows the judge. Similarly, any player knows the rules; a good player knows fantasy literature. A great player knows the DM.

If the things you come up with aren't working, then you need to look again at rule 4.b, and then try to learn what does work for that DM.

Not quite. When you agree to play D&D, you agree to accept that DM's approach, whatever it is. See rule 3, above.

One further comment, from the same source:

16. Not all games are for all people. Some DMs aren’t right for some players, and there’s nothing wrong with that. If you are in a game you don’t enjoy, and the DM won’t change after your questions, just leave.

a. If that game is not a good game for you, then that fact will never change. That doesn’t mean that you are wrong, or that the DM is wrong – just that you shouldn’t play in that game.
b. Don’t confuse “I’m annoyed with this ruling” with “I’m not enjoying the game.” No resemblance. If you can enjoy the game as it is, then have fun!
c. There’s no value in complaining about the DM while you’re leaving. Complaints have value only if they might change things for you. Thank her for running the game, and move on.

[These rules are written for myself, for the way I play games. I am not saying that anybody else “should” play a game this way. These rules exist to help me be consistent, effective, and immersive.

Anybody else is free to use them as guidelines, to modify them, to use some but not others, or to ignore them altogether, as seems best to you. We don't all agree on how to play a game, and there's nothing wrong with that.]
What an awesome post.
(Are your "rules" at a link somewhere? You seem to have a really good perspective on both sides of the screen).

Jay R

2024-06-02, 12:26 PM

What an awesome post.

Thank you!

(Are your "rules" at a link somewhere? You seem to have a really good perspective on both sides of the screen).

No, except on Facebook. You can find earlier versions of them here on these forums:
Rules for DMs
(https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?631804-Rules-for-DMs-once-again)and
Rules for Players (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?654449-Jay-R-s-suggested-Rules-for-Players)

But those versions are incomplete, because I'm always ready to modify or expand them.

I'm considering re-posting my "Rules for DMs" document and asking for critique again soon. That always leads to a spirited discussion, because we don't all agree on how to play a game, and there's nothing wrong with that. If I do, it will be at a time when I expect to have enough free time to respond for three days straight.

edit: I've posted the first half of my re-named DMing document. It's in this thread: Jay R's Philosophy of DMing -- Part I (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?668131-Jay-R-s-Philosophy-of-DMing-Part-I)

KorvinStarmast

2024-06-03, 08:37 AM

Thank you!

Jay R's Philosophy of DMing -- Part I (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?668131-Jay-R-s-Philosophy-of-DMing-Part-I) Just want to say that I wish more "modern" players would ponder your rules for players number 6. At tables where that philosophy is embraced, the game is better.

gatorized

2024-06-03, 10:45 AM

The DM should not have called for a player strength check. If the dragon is strong enough to lift your character's weight, it doesn't matter how strong you are. Unless you had a building, terrain, or some other object to brace against.

Now, if you meant you wanted to wrap your hook's chain around the dragon's wings with a throw, preventing it from flying, that could certainly work. That would be a combat stunt, use an appropriate trait against the dragon's Might. Up to two successes halves its speed, 3 or 4 prevents it moving. Combat stunts only last one page, so a new challenge roll will be needed each page that you want to maintain the hold. Also, the dragon can burst the chain if it gets enough successes on a might roll vs the chain's structure.

Easy e

2024-06-03, 10:46 AM

Talakeal

2024-06-03, 01:51 PM

gbaji

2024-06-03, 04:42 PM

Good discussion guys with lots of interesting points and opinions.

Guess normal D&D combat just bores me now after a lot of years and after trying other systems, some crunchy and some less-than crunchy. A personal preference. Since this is a D&D-centric forum I expect not everyone feels that way. However, pushing back on D&D does generate some insightful conversation that I learn from!

I was taught long ago, that if something is boring you ask yourself "what are you bringing to the table to make it not boring/" That is no one else's issue, so do something to fix it for yourself. Hence I am frequently trying to do weird stuff to amuse myself during D&D combat as both a player and a DM.

I can get behind this. I tend to agree that D&D is a very... er... basic game in terms of how it mechanically handles things. But. That's the game system they were playing. I would also tend to make customizations and house rules if I were running a D&D game long term (cause I have in the past). But that's just me and my own need to codify things in games I run over time. When a player proposes an action that doesn't fit well into the rules, I tend to make a ruling at the table, but always caveat that to my players as "I reserve the right to change this later when I've had more time to think about it". This keeps the game moving, allows for the action to be resolved, but also allows me to think about it (and talk it over with my players) and come up with a house rule that will work in the game system we're using later on. Over time, you can then build a set of rules that work and cover more and more situations. And thus, kinda make the game your own, but also make it have the "fun stuff" you talked about.

It's just kinda funny to me, because the game system I use most often (RuneQuest) has rules for grappling, and hit locations, and rules for entangled or immobilized locations. It also even has a few weapons that can be used as examples for the "use a grappling hook to immobilize the dragon's wing" attempt (whips, lassos, and bolos IIRC). So there already exist some decent starting points for managing this. Of course, stats in RQ are more linear (I guess?), and run up much much higher than those typically found in D&D, which makes this even more problematic. Humans have 3d6 str, which can't really be raised beyond the maximum (18), and can only be enhanced via spells to some degree (we houserule you can't more than double the base stat). So... 36 maximum baring some kind of extra special/rare stat increase going on here. Meanwhile dragons in RQ get 20d6 str. So they average 70 strength. And the stat vs stat comparison is linear, so 5% chance modification for every point difference. Meaning that, while you certainly can entangle the dragon's wing with a grappling hook and rope, and that by itself may slow it down a little bit, your odds of immobilizing are 5% (actually likely 1%, since once you hit -30, you drop down another step). Meanwhile the dragon can spend an action and free itself with a 95% (or even 99%) chance. I suppose you could wrap the other end around something solid, but dragons are ridiculously strong in that game. Like, knock down buildings strong.

Now. Using the grappling line to swing up onto the dragons back and attack it in melee while it's flying around is a whole different idea...

gatorized

2024-06-03, 10:45 PM

Now. Using the grappling line to swing up onto the dragons back and attack it in melee while it's flying around is a whole different idea...

Use a clutch claw attack to tenderize the monster's parts and get bonus damage, partner!

Mastikator

2024-06-04, 02:35 AM

Satinavian

2024-06-04, 04:38 AM

I don't want to derail the thread on this topic, perhaps a new thread would be in order.

No, I am not complaining about there being rules. However, why would I ever use them? That is more of what I am complaining about. There is no reason to do anything in a cool or cinematic way because it will probably hinder you more than help.

I can use my action to maybe, possibly make someone prone until their turn which gives others an advantage to hit them. Or I could just hit them myself with something from my sheet. If I am really special, that hit may also do some special effect too! The better option 9 times out of 10 is to just hit them myself and push the button. Therefore, why even bother with the other stuff that may not be on my sheet? People wouldn't use weapons and spend years of training learning the best techniques with those weapons if it was not pretty much optimal to actually use those weapons.

If rug pulling and shoving would beat swinging a sword in effectiveness, armies would consist of battalions of professional shovers and pullers with baggage trains with rugs.

That is why I as GM get to not give improvised combat maneuvers particularly good chances/results if i have to make ruling. The exception would indeed be the example of "shoving into acid" which exploits unique situational circumstances making a particular action far more effective than it usually would be. That can become more optimal than a standard attack - but those situations are not standard but rare.

Now that does not mean that combat has to be boring. There are many systems out there making combat with weapons and proper maneuvers and stances varied and challenging. You don't have top boil down all martial expertise into "roll a d20 + static bonus every single round".

lesser_minion

2024-06-04, 10:00 AM

Satinavian

2024-06-04, 10:21 AM

I'm not sure how effective rug pulling specifically would be (rugs don't move easily when they have 120kg of angry knight on them). But as I understand it, historical martial arts involved a lot of things that weren't just "take a swipe at your opponent with your sword for the real-world equivalent of d8 damage". And that certainly included grabbing at enemies, grabbing at their weapons, trying to unhorse riders, and trying to knock enemies to the ground.
Yes, but those are still not the "out of box solutions" requiring rulings that are talked about. Stuff like that is in most crunchy system part of the regular combat rules. Because those combat rules try to model those martial arts and thus it becomes part of the buttons on the character sheet.

Furthermore, those maneuvers are situational. Even in those martial arts, nine times out of ten you would still just attack with your weapon. You just get more options for when you have a bad matchup or are in a bind or the enemy shows a particular vulnerability.

kyoryu

2024-06-04, 10:32 AM

People wouldn't use weapons and spend years of training learning the best techniques with those weapons if it was not pretty much optimal to actually use those weapons.

If rug pulling and shoving would beat swinging a sword in effectiveness, armies would consist of battalions of professional shovers and pullers with baggage trains with rugs.

That is why I as GM get to not give improvised combat maneuvers particularly good chances/results if i have to make ruling. The exception would indeed be the example of "shoving into acid" which exploits unique situational circumstances making a particular action far more effective than it usually would be. That can become more optimal than a standard attack - but those situations are not standard but rare.

Exactly, which is why every comment I've made on here is basically "shouldn't be blanket 'better' than any standard maneuver unless it is using specific situational factors".

Yes, but those are still not the "out of box solutions" requiring rulings that are talked about. Stuff like that is in most crunchy system part of the regular combat rules. Because those combat rules try to model those martial arts and thus it becomes part of the buttons on the character sheet.

Right. And as a point of game design, those buttons should also be situational - when you attack, grapple, etc. should depend on the situation. One shouldn't be universally "better". Arguably - one shouldn't even be better for a specific character. The most interesting gameplay is when you're evaluating options.

(And, yes, I consider the "standard attack" to fall under that umbrella, too)

BRC

2024-06-04, 10:53 AM

Right. And as a point of game design, those buttons should also be situational - when you attack, grapple, etc. should depend on the situation. One shouldn't be universally "better". Arguably - one shouldn't even be better for a specific character. The most interesting gameplay is when you're evaluating options.

(And, yes, I consider the "standard attack" to fall under that umbrella, too)

My criteria for "Should this be better than just hitting them with your sword" is to check the proposed maneuver under one of three categories: Risk, Cost, or Circumstance. The general assumption is that anything that is "Just better" than a basic attack is already part of the basic attack. You don't have to say "I try to slip my blade between the gaps in their armor", because slipping your blade between the gaps in their armor is usually what a successful attack represents. If you want anything beyond that, one of the three categories needs to apply.

Risk: Some mechanics (5e/s Reckless attack) can already cover it decently well, but in some situations I'll allow a combat advantage if you are putting yourself at a considerable risk to do so. This often overlaps with Circumstance, but if you want to, say, try to stab upwards as a giant brings it's foot down, you might get something out of that, knowing that unless you deal considerable damage (Enough to make the giant fall back), it IS just going to step on you.

Cost: I'll allow creative combat tricks if they involve some considerable cost, either in non-trivially replacable items or hit points. Some reason that, while this particular trick might be worth it NOW, it maybe isn't going to be worth it every time.

Circumstance:As others have stated, taking advantage of the circumstances changes a lot. Shoving is usually a trivial move (You shove, they step back into melee), shoving off a cliff is a fight-ender. People get to creatively exploit the environment. Generally, some degree of circumstance is needed for anything. Any maneuver usable against any opponent in any situation is usually covered by standard game rules (Like Reckless attack).

These three criteria also scale with what sort of impact I'm going to allow. "The enemy is within 5ft of a cliff" allows a player to shove the enemy off the cliff for a considerable advantage. "The enemy is within 5ft of a stone wall", I might grant a little something for slamming an enemy against the wall, the enemy gets a little extra damage or a small penalty to attack for the next round as they are unable to maneuver, but that trick will probably only work once per fight.

If the Cost of a Manuever is "You are skipping one of your weapon attacks", it's impact should be roughly capped at the impact of a weapon attack. If they want to be more powerful, then they should not only skip a weapon attack, but pay some extra cost, introduce extra risk, or take advantage of the circumstance.

To use 5e as an example. Pulling a rug out from under an opponent is basically just another method of tripping them, something that people can already do instead of attacking, so that matches up pretty nicely. If they want to pull a rug out from under MULTIPLE opponents, then the risk must goes up to account for the extra impact (say, it's now at disadvantage and if they fail they cannot move and the next attack against them is at advantage as they are kneeling down trying to pull the rug).

NichG

2024-06-04, 12:11 PM

Personally, I sometimes design systems that explicitly separate one off stunting from precedent using a resource - maybe per-session or per-level.

So e.g. it's explicitly the case that if you do a stunt and I run it a certain way, the next time you try the exact same thing I may run it entirely different. Unless you spend a point of the resource, which converts the stunt into an appropriate rules object, we iterate a bit on cleaning up how it will work in the future (which may be different than how I just ran it - like, it might gain a cost or provoke an AoO without a feat or something, but trying to keep the essential bits), and we write it down.

That way I can separate rule of cool in the moment stuff from 'am I going to regret allowing this because of the precedent?' questions. The player has to signal explicitly when they expect this ruling to establish precedent and I can reserve the more careful analysis for when I get that signal.

KorvinStarmast

2024-06-04, 03:22 PM

That is why I as GM get to not give improvised combat maneuvers particularly good chances/results if i have to make ruling. The exception would indeed be the example of "shoving into acid" which exploits unique situational circumstances making a particular action far more effective than it usually would be. That can become more optimal than a standard attack - but those situations are not standard but rare. Yes. While I have shoved a few enemies off of cliffs, ledges, bridges, walls, or ships, those are the exception rather than the rule.

gbaji

2024-06-04, 04:51 PM

It is safer though, than to try to stowaway on the dragon's flight, which is just suicidal.

But terribly terribly heroic! :smallsmile:

Yes, but those are still not the "out of box solutions" requiring rulings that are talked about. Stuff like that is in most crunchy system part of the regular combat rules. Because those combat rules try to model those martial arts and thus it becomes part of the buttons on the character sheet.

Exactly! The assumption is that each opponent in the fight is trying to use whatever is around to their best ability while fighting. That's what's figured into whatever rules are already in place. And, as you say, some game systems do a better job of breaking down a variety of combat options and incorporating them into the rules than others. Pick the system that has the degree of variety that you want, and then play that game. And yes, this can also include games that are more stunt focused than others as well.

Furthermore, those maneuvers are situational. Even in those martial arts, nine times out of ten you would still just attack with your weapon. You just get more options for when you have a bad matchup or are in a bind or the enemy shows a particular vulnerability.

I think that many players (and GMs!) have grown up watching action/adventure films and shows. Those things show us scripted fights, where the writers are specifically constructing the scenes to be as exciting and "unusual" for the audience as possible. As a result, they have a massively skewed ratio of "trick moves" to "just swing your weapon at your opponent" than anything remotely resembling "real fighting" would have. And this is represented in the game system you are playing. Some tend towards more "realistic fighting", while some absolutely lean in the "make combat like the movies" approach. Pick the system you want to use.

And, as I pointed out earlier, there can be balance issues to this. Even in D&D, there are classes and sub classes with feats that allow for a lot of special moves with special effects. If you didn't pick that class/subclass, or that feat, then allowing you to do the special move anyway, somewhat steps on the balance in the game. And sure, we can think it's silly and very segmented in an "all or nothing" kind of way, but that's D&D.

That's not to say that the GM can't allow these sorts of things (cause you absolutely should). But the GM needs to keep in mind both that these should only ever be more effective than just "button pushing" in rare situations *and* keep in mind appropriate penalties for doing these things based on other costs/actions that exist in the game (ie: if there's a feat that does something, you need to make sure that trying to do something with the same general effect without the feat is much more difficult to pull off). For D&D, I would at a minimum use the with/without proficiency rules as a guideline (or whatever zero level skill rules may apply).

And as a follow up. If your players are constantly trying to stunt their way through things rather than just using the stuff on their sheets, consider playing a game system that puts stunt type stuff on their sheets. There are a number of them. We don't all have to play D&D. Now yes, it's possible that even when playing games with greater flexibility in "skills/abilities/stunts on the sheet", some players will still keep trying to do something else instead. At which point, you may just be hitting one of those min/max players and need to make a different kind of decision.

Personally, I prefer to play/run games that have pretty firm rules in terms of actions available. I just find that it ensures that everyone is on the same page, knows what to expect, and actually reduces arguments at the table ("what do you mean the goblin lept up onto the bannister, swung around and is now flanking me!?"). If everyone at the table knows "the rules", and they're used consistently, everyone knows what to expect. Now, we have added a boatload of house rules to manage a whole host of different types of moves and actions in our game. But they are consistently applied. So the players know that if they position themselves like so, whether the enemy will be able to move past them or not. They know that while rolling around on the floor grappling with an opponent, that they can absolutely grab that nearby rock and smash it on the opponents head, but they also know exactly what the grappling strength effect will be (using one hand now instead of two), and the risk of their opponent breaking free while they're hitting it on the head with a rock. And they also know exactly the odds of grabbing that rock, and hitting the opponent with it, and the damage potential available (versus just continuing to try to squeeze/punch), and can make their own very well informed decision as to what to do.

Same for pushing opponents off of cliffs and whatnot. Clearly defined rules for that already exist, so there's no confusion. So yeah. Either play a game system that has such things in it, or house rule them into your existing game. That way, you don't have to make stuff up as often during play. And the more of this stuff you have in your game, the more guidelines you have available to "make stuff up" that doesn't perfectly fit. And the players will also get a feel for how things will work and be ruled (cause they know the same set of rules as well). So in my game, the player would already have a pretty good idea of what would be required to snag a specific location on a dragon with a grappling hook, and what their likelihood of doing various things with said grappling hook once/if it's successfully snagged onto said dragon's location are, and it's very likely that any specific ruling I make will be met with "yeah, that's about what I thought, just checking to be sure" (followed by a decision) as a response.