Quote Originally Posted by Saint-Just View Post
You say "unexpected" as if you expect players to completely ignore RL common sense about tasks which are possible IRL.
I meant it literally. As in, a player is presented with a task and expects one DC, and the DM uses another. They could be wildly different, or they could be one off from each other.

You know, it's possible the DM is the one who has a strong grasp of RL difficulties and it's the players who want unrealistic DCs. And don't be fooled by the DC chart in 3e. If those numbers correlate to realism in any way, it's coincidence. They're set for gameplay balance reasons, or at most to create the illusion of verisimilitude ("Gee, different wall types have different degrees of challenge to climb -- how immersive!").

Quote Originally Posted by Saint-Just View Post
Consistency is not 100% sufficient. Consistently giving sheer cliffs DC 10 (and everything else less than DC 10) may lead to the players expecting DC 10 walls, but it does not make it any less nonsensical.
Sounds like DC 10 sheer cliffs (and everything else less than 10) just means you have some kind of superhuman feel going for your game. It's not nonsensical, especially if playing in a game like that is a deliberate decision on the part of the players and DM. I'm not a huge fan of D&D-as-superhero game, but lots of people are.

Most of these DC issues are easily solved with some session 0 talk about game expectations. Sure, there will be some elements missed during that discussion, but if you set the general tone and feel of the game up front, it's easy to patch the rest as you go. If you agree that the game should have a certain level of "realism," then when the DM sets a DC that doesn't jive with that, the players can sensibly ask "Is this DC in alignment with what we originally talked about?" It's far less confrontational than "I have a published list of DCs and you should feel bad for not using them."