Killer obstructive DM, nintendo hard games, and shift in gamer culture

[Pex]

Let's take a look at 3E.

The DC table gives numbers and example walls or surfaces

DC 0 is a slope too steep to walk and a knotted rope with a wall to brace against.
DC 5 is a rope with a wall to brace against (not knotted), a knotted rope (no wall) or rope trick
DC 10 a surface with ledges to hold onto such as a rough wall or ship's rigging
DC 15 Any surface with adequate hand holds and foot holds like a very rough natural rock surface, tree
DC 20 Uneven surface with hand holds and foot holds - a typical (generic) wall in a dungeon or ruins
DC 25 Overhang or ceiling with hand holds, a rough surface such as a natural rock wall or brick wall
DC No when it's a perfectly flat vertical surface

Oh look, there are modifiers. Lower the DC by 10 where you can brace against two opposite walls.
Lower the DC by 5 if you can brace against a perpendicular wall.
Increase DC by 5 if it's slippery.
The modifiers are cumulative.

Want to climb a wall in a dungeon? DC 20. The wall was made by dwarves so it's extra smooth, DC 25. Want to climb the front of a store made of wood, and there's a porch? Ah, ledges to hold on to. DC 10. Want to climb the wall of Castle Ravenloft to get inside undetected and safely? Plot point, but DC 25 is fine.

That's all I need. I don't need to account for every possible wall make up. There's a benchmark to work with. I want to climb a dungeon wall. The DC is 20. If the DC is not 20 there's a reason. It's slippery. It was constructed better. It's a stone giant's calf.

[EggKookoo]

The DC is 20.

The example DC is 20. The examples are for when the DM can't work it out, doesn't have time to work it out, or for whatever reason can't be bothered to.

The rule (in 3e) is, the DM decides the DC. The only place where there's an actual DC formula in 3e is for spell saves and monster abilities (similar to 5e with spell saves and passives). Everything else is whatever the DM chooses, with a suggestion to just go with 15 in a pinch. The examples in the DMG are not rules. They are not something the DM is bound by. They are not something meant for the players to use in an argument (if they were meant for the player, they'd be in the PHB). The DMG says the DM can not only choose a DC on a whim, it explicitly says the DM is not obliged to explain his choice to the players at the table. It goes so far as to recommend the DM not explain his choice, and to remind the players that he's the boss (with the caveat to wield that power wisely in order to avoid losing players).

That's all in my 3e DMG.

[Saint-Just]

The examples in the DMG are not rules. They are not something the DM is bound by. They are not something meant for the players to use in an argument (if they were meant for the player, they'd be in the PHB).

Examples of Climb DCs are in PHB, as are many others (DCs to pick a lock, to make a jump, to Tumble ignoring AoO etc. etc.).

More importantly you seem to be reading antagonistic intent into your opponents' words. What I think is most important is that in absence of examples it's not all that easy to quantify comparative difference of the task (e.g. ignoring AoO is 15, hardest DC we are given for Climb checks is 25, 30 if slippery, meanwhile locks go all way up to 40 (and if your hands are slippery while you are trying to pick a lock I bet it would also increase the difficulty)). Even DMs who are sure that no player would question their decisions may want (and I would go as far as to say that better Dms would want) examples of DCs for different actions, otherwise unless they are both familiar with the activity in question and have a good head for numbers (probability) they may assign DC which would be nonsensical.

[EggKookoo]

Examples of Climb DCs are in PHB, as are many others (DCs to pick a lock, to make a jump, to Tumble ignoring AoO etc. etc.).

Even so, the DMG is pretty clear that the DM sets those DCs, and those decisions are not to be questioned by the players at the table. I mean, I don't have this attitude at my own table. I'm just pointing out that 3e is no less mother may I than 5e. It's just obfuscated by having a list of examples.

More importantly you seem to be reading antagonistic intent into your opponents' words.

Not from Pex. This issue aside, I find I agree with nearly everything I've seen him post. And I don't even strictly disagree here. I don't think a list of DCs would hurt. I just think that level of detail is counter to what 5e is trying to do, and it isn't some kind of magic bullet. DMs will do what they will, even by the book in 3e. Which is my point in posting those snippets from the 3e DMG.

But I have seen some pretty antagonistic posts in this thread, regarding toxicity and players.

What I think is most important is that in absence of examples it's not all that easy to quantify comparative difference of the task (e.g. ignoring AoO is 15, hardest DC we are given for Climb checks is 25, 30 if slippery, meanwhile locks go all way up to 40 (and if your hands are slippery while you are trying to pick a lock I bet it would also increase the difficulty)).

I'm not sure how important it is to quantify things to a great level of precision. Combat is pretty gamey. And speaking of, it's not a problem to say a level 10 creature is level 10 because it's level 10. Why is it a problem to say a hard wall is a hard wall because it's hard to climb?

Even DMs who are sure that no player would question their decisions may want (and I would go as far as to say that better Dms would want) examples of DCs for different actions, otherwise unless they are both familiar with the activity in question and have a good head for numbers (probability) they may assign DC which would be nonsensical.

There are two things here. One is a request for a consistent set of DCs. The other is for DCs that map to reality. I don't think many people expect the latter, since reality won't conform to a set of 5% challenge increments in the range of D&D DCs. Regarding the former, one thing I do disagree with Pex about, I don't think it's reasonable to insist they be consist across tables. Especially across unrelated tables (like yours and mine). Of course, even if such a list was made, I'd use it only if it already agreed with my own estimations, or more importantly, were useful in creating fun challenges...

[Cluedrew]

To Pex: Have you ever tried asking a GM for some examples? Like pick some things your character is likely to do and ask for DCs for them? I'm not saying that makes the problem disappear but it could help.

By the way I feel D&D has always kind of left its skill system kind of underdeveloped. So I can believe an attempt at rules light(er) D&D made them a bit too rules light.

[Zarrgon]

Practically, if the GM says the wall is "difficulty <x>" and hasn't really described the wall, then I just assume the wall is one that makes sense to have that difficulty. It's pretty easy.

If the GM describes the wall in such a way that it doesn't make sense with the given DC, then I ask.

This does not sound so bad as long as you don't over do it. But after a couple levels you will get to magic walls, ans not all magic walls have an easy visual clue.

That's all I need. I don't need to account for every possible wall make up. There's a benchmark to work with. I want to climb a dungeon wall. The DC is 20. If the DC is not 20 there's a reason. It's slippery. It was constructed better. It's a stone giant's calf.

But what good does this small list even do? It lists some common DC's for some common things relating to walls, but it is in no way the final say on every wall in the game. The rules have a lot more to say about walls.

And this might be the big thing: the game should scale up as the characters gain levels. At like 12th your character won't be climbing a 'loose rock wall', it will be something more level appropriate. And that takes you right back to the "DC could be anything".

[NorthernPhoenix]

Examples of Climb DCs are in PHB, as are many others (DCs to pick a lock, to make a jump, to Tumble ignoring AoO etc. etc.).

More importantly you seem to be reading antagonistic intent into your opponents' words. What I think is most important is that in absence of examples it's not all that easy to quantify comparative difference of the task (e.g. ignoring AoO is 15, hardest DC we are given for Climb checks is 25, 30 if slippery, meanwhile locks go all way up to 40 (and if your hands are slippery while you are trying to pick a lock I bet it would also increase the difficulty)). Even DMs who are sure that no player would question their decisions may want (and I would go as far as to say that better Dms would want) examples of DCs for different actions, otherwise unless they are both familiar with the activity in question and have a good head for numbers (probability) they may assign DC which would be nonsensical.

They are in 3e (and 4e), but not in 5e. And the reason for that which is relevant to this thread is that to force a change in the culture of the game moving into the new edition, those kinds of tables needed to be removed.

[Pex]

The example DC is 20. The examples are for when the DM can't work it out, doesn't have time to work it out, or for whatever reason can't be bothered to.

The rule (in 3e) is, the DM decides the DC. The only place where there's an actual DC formula in 3e is for spell saves and monster abilities (similar to 5e with spell saves and passives). Everything else is whatever the DM chooses, with a suggestion to just go with 15 in a pinch. The examples in the DMG are not rules. They are not something the DM is bound by. They are not something meant for the players to use in an argument (if they were meant for the player, they'd be in the PHB). The DMG says the DM can not only choose a DC on a whim, it explicitly says the DM is not obliged to explain his choice to the players at the table. It goes so far as to recommend the DM not explain his choice, and to remind the players that he's the boss (with the caveat to wield that power wisely in order to avoid losing players).

That's all in my 3e DMG.

What the DM says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the players go too.

The tables provide a baseline players can work with to build their character to be able to do particular things if it matters to the player. The tables are a facilitator for the DM so he doesn't have to think up a number every time a player wants to do something. When a situation arises a table does not explicitly address the DM has a reference point to pick a number fairly.

To Pex: Have you ever tried asking a GM for some examples? Like pick some things your character is likely to do and ask for DCs for them? I'm not saying that makes the problem disappear but it could help.

By the way I feel D&D has always kind of left its skill system kind of underdeveloped. So I can believe an attempt at rules light(er) D&D made them a bit too rules light.

This harkens to another pet peeve I have in regards to 5E about vague rules in general. I don't want to have to ask every DM I play with what rules are we playing with this time. The rules shouldn't change just because the DM does - the DM's personal revealed at session 0 house rules accepted. The DC to climb a tree or wall would be one of those rules. A DM being consistent within his own game hasn't been a problem. If the DM is a jerk I'll quit. I've done that. The problem is playing with different DMs in different campaigns but none of the DMs are jerks still results in playing with different rules. It's a bother to me my warlock was Tarzan but my monk was George of the Jungle because the DMs had different opinions on how hard it is to climb a tree.

This does not sound so bad as long as you don't over do it. But after a couple levels you will get to magic walls, ans not all magic walls have an easy visual clue.



But what good does this small list even do? It lists some common DC's for some common things relating to walls, but it is in no way the final say on every wall in the game. The rules have a lot more to say about walls.

And this might be the big thing: the game should scale up as the characters gain levels. At like 12th your character won't be climbing a 'loose rock wall', it will be something more level appropriate. And that takes you right back to the "DC could be anything".

The tables provide a baseline players can work with to build their character to be able to do particular things if it matters to the player. The tables are a facilitator for the DM so he doesn't have to think up a number every time a player wants to do something. When a situation arises a table does not explicitly address the DM has a reference point to pick a number fairly.

[Jay R]

I’ve seen things that caused bad gaming experiences, but none of them were as meaningless as a wall.

So I have to ask: after all this talk about it being a problem, has anybody ever had an actually bad gaming experience because they expected a DC 15 wall and it turned out to be DC 25?

And if so, was that bad experience because the DM gave the wall a false high DC, or because you had a false low opinion of the wall’s difficulty?

And how can there possibly be an answer to the second question about a wall that does not, in fact, exist?

[Telok]

I’ve seen things that caused bad gaming experiences, but none of them were as meaningless as a wall.

So I have to ask: after all this talk about it being a problem, has anybody ever had an actually bad gaming experience because they expected a DC 15 wall and it turned out to be DC 25?

And if so, was that bad experience because the DM gave the wall a false high DC, or because you had a false low opinion of the wall’s difficulty?

And how can there possibly be an answer to the second question about a wall that does not, in fact, exist?

Well there was the time that it took 3 sessions to discover that the sun didn't move. It was a homemade setting, obviously, featuring an infinite sea, large island chains, and the sun never rose or set. There was also no written game/setting document so everything was in the head of the DM and communicated differently to different plauers at different times. When I came up with a decent plan that involved waiting until nightfall for something stealthy half the table was "heck yeah" and the other half was "wtf dude". It took us an hour to get everyone on the same page about the setting and assumptions.

Ya want jankey DCs that pissed people off though, we played Out of the Abyss. There was a climb check for a 5' high natural rock ledge at dc 11, the thief acrobat character failed that three times just trying to get somewhere for a clear bow shot and again after combat ended. Then, much later, a beholder lair featured a 100' vertical shaft carved and smoothed by magic as a defensive feature that was dc 10 to climb the whole thing but you only rolled during combat. Bad experience.

[Pex]

I’ve seen things that caused bad gaming experiences, but none of them were as meaningless as a wall.

So I have to ask: after all this talk about it being a problem, has anybody ever had an actually bad gaming experience because they expected a DC 15 wall and it turned out to be DC 25?

And if so, was that bad experience because the DM gave the wall a false high DC, or because you had a false low opinion of the wall’s difficulty?

And how can there possibly be an answer to the second question about a wall that does not, in fact, exist?

Raises hand. I wanted to climb a tree to hide from oncoming hostiles. I had to roll Athletics DC 20 with 10 ST and no proficiency. Don't remember what I rolled, but I know it was not a 20. Different campaign. Granted I had to take off my armor for swimming, but the party wanted to swim across a moat, climb a small hill of rocks to reach an empty Keep, climb the wall to get to a low window, and go inside before approaching hostiles could see us. I have 10 ST and no proficiency in Athletics. The number of checks the party needed to make: 0. We got into the Keep because we wanted to.

[EggKookoo]

I see a lot of conflation between "the DC was unexpected" and "why did I have to roll at all?" These are two different issues. I certainly agree the rules could be stronger in emphasizing when a roll is called for and when the DM should just be describing the effects.

[Saint-Just]

I see a lot of conflation between "the DC was unexpected" and "why did I have to roll at all?" These are two different issues. I certainly agree the rules could be stronger in emphasizing when a roll is called for and when the DM should just be describing the effects.

You say "unexpected" as if you expect players to completely ignore RL common sense about tasks which are possible IRL. Consistency is not 100% sufficient. Consistently giving sheer cliffs DC 10 (and everything else less than DC 10) may lead to the players expecting DC 10 walls, but it does not make it any less nonsensical.

[EggKookoo]

You say "unexpected" as if you expect players to completely ignore RL common sense about tasks which are possible IRL.

I meant it literally. As in, a player is presented with a task and expects one DC, and the DM uses another. They could be wildly different, or they could be one off from each other.

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

Consistency is not 100% sufficient. Consistently giving sheer cliffs DC 10 (and everything else less than DC 10) may lead to the players expecting DC 10 walls, but it does not make it any less nonsensical.

Sounds like DC 10 sheer cliffs (and everything else less than 10) just means you have some kind of superhuman feel going for your game. It's not nonsensical, especially if playing in a game like that is a deliberate decision on the part of the players and DM. I'm not a huge fan of D&D-as-superhero game, but lots of people are.

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

[ExLibrisMortis]

And don't be fooled by the DC chart in 3e. If those numbers correlate to realism in any way, it's coincidence.

Which is still better than what 5e provides.

It seems that a lot of your arguments in support of 5e come down to "3e isn't perfect either". Yes, the 3e skill system isn't as robust or elaborate as some, and people have pointed that out for a long time, especially when it comes to social skills. That still doesn't mean that 5e is in any way good or even better than 3e--it isn't. And, given that the 3e system wasn't that good to begin with, it's strange that 5e made no effort to improve. The designers simply gave it up as a bad job, and decided to spend minimal developer (and player!) time on skills. In a way, that does away with a problem with 3e skills--the new system is less fiddly--but it's not very constructive, since the new system still does not allow for complex checks or outcomes, and arguably puts mundane skill-users even further behind magic-users, which are both common complaints about the 3e system.

(By "complex check" I mean something like a full attack with Trip, where a series of rolls form one "move" that produces a (complex) outcome. By "complex outcome" I mean results like "you fail, but..." and "you succeed, but..." that--as I understand--are common in dice pool systems.)

[EggKookoo]

Which is still better than what 5e provides.

Debatable. As a DM who is comfortable winging DCs, I much prefer being allowed to do that without the rules prodding the players to second guess my choices. I don't object to a player saying "that DC doesn't feel right, based on my 1) real-world understanding of the task or 2) an intuitive gut-feeling about what it should be." I object to a player saying "I don't like the DC you picked because the rulebook has a suggested DC that's different." If 5e had a DC list like 3e, I'd be well aware of it. If I'm deviating from it, I'm doing so for a reason. Either I'm trying to signify this task is different somehow, or I don't agree with the suggested DC.

If having a preset list of DCs was important to me, I'd compile my own.

It seems that a lot of your arguments in support of 5e come down to "3e isn't perfect either".

I'm responding to statements that 5e would do better to have a DC list like 3e does. Some folks have presented it exactly as that. I'm trying to point out why 3e's list wasn't all it's cracked up to be.

Yes, the 3e skill system isn't as robust or elaborate as some, and people have pointed that out for a long time, especially when it comes to social skills. That still doesn't mean that 5e is in any way good or even better than 3e--it isn't.

"Better" is a subjective judgment call. For my DMing style, 5e is hands-down better. For Pex's playstyle (for example), it's not.

And, given that the 3e system wasn't that good to begin with, it's strange that 5e made no effort to improve. The designers simply gave it up as a bad job, and decided to spend minimal developer (and player!) time on skills. In a way, that does away with a problem with 3e skills--the new system is less fiddly--but it's not very constructive, since the new system still does not allow for complex checks or outcomes, and arguably puts mundane skill-users even further behind magic-users, which are both common complaints about the 3e system.

I believe the 5e devs considered leaving out excessive mechanical detail to be an improvement. So while I think you can say that was a bad decision, I don't think it's a case of them making no effort to improve.

(By "complex check" I mean something like a full attack with Trip, where a series of rolls form one "move" that produces a (complex) outcome. By "complex outcome" I mean results like "you fail, but..." and "you succeed, but..." that--as I understand--are common in dice pool systems.)

I'm glad D&D doesn't have partial successes or failures baked into the system. I still apply them when they feel appropriate, if possible, based on how closely the failed roll got to the DC. But only in cases where success itself is kind of fuzzy (persuasion checks are a good example) and there's not a followup "degree of success" mechanic, such as the damage roll that follows the attack roll.

But as with skill DCs, I'm happy to be free to apply these as needed. If I wanted a locked-down list of such, I'd make my own. I'm not interested in telling another DM that they must use my list, and I definitely don't want them telling me I need to use theirs.

[kyoryu]

Debatable. As a DM who is comfortable winging DCs, I much prefer being allowed to do that without the rules prodding the players to second guess my choices. I don't object to a player saying "that DC doesn't feel right, based on my 1) real-world understanding of the task or 2) an intuitive gut-feeling about what it should be." I object to a player saying "I don't like the DC you picked because the rulebook has a suggested DC that's different." If 5e had a DC list like 3e, I'd be well aware of it. If I'm deviating from it, I'm doing so for a reason. Either I'm trying to signify this task is different somehow, or I don't agree with the suggested DC.

Pretty much this.

Add to that the time necessary to look up the DC chart, all the modifiers, etc.

And as I've said before, if I want the wall to be DC 20? It'll be DC 20. I'll figure out what modifiers I need to have in place for it to be a DC 20 wall. So why jump through the hoops?

If you like the illusion of consistency that said charts provide? Great. It literally has no value to me - probably negative value. The costs (as above) outweigh the non-existent benefits.

It's not that those on the "5e is fine" side don't understand your points. I can see where that would be pretty necessary if you had certain things you valued. I just don't value those things.

(Note that I play more Fate than anything, and that's a game where even what a given skill rating means is fairly arbitrary between campaigns, so a set list of difficulties would be literally impossible)

"Better" is a subjective judgment call. For my DMing style, 5e is hands-down better. For Pex's playstyle (for example), it's not.

I believe the 5e devs considered leaving out excessive mechanical detail to be an improvement. So while I think you can say that was a bad decision, I don't think it's a case of them making no effort to improve.

Exactly this. The page 174 chart is all I want. My game experience is in no way enhanced by a list of examples and modifiers. I get that it is for some people, because they value and prioritize things differently in their gaming. That's great! I accept that 5e is worse for them in that regard. People like different things and that's why we have different games. 3.x, for instance, is pretty much my anti-game. And the reasons it's my anti-game are pretty much all the reasons why its fans love it. As I like to say, "it does a bunch of things very well that I have no interest in".

5e can be a bad game for some people, like Pex. That doesn't mean it's an objectively bad game. It's just a bad game for them.

Also, I could probably make a reasonable argument that a game like 3e, where skill ratings vary SO MUCH, is in more need of calibration points than something like 5e (or Fate), which have much more constrained skill levels.

[Pex]

I see a lot of conflation between "the DC was unexpected" and "why did I have to roll at all?" These are two different issues. I certainly agree the rules could be stronger in emphasizing when a roll is called for and when the DM should just be describing the effects.

If there were DC tables to provide examples then there wouldn't be a discrepancy between what a player expects and the DM proscribes.

[EggKookoo]

If there were DC tables to provide examples then there wouldn't be a discrepancy between what a player expects and the DM proscribes.

I can't imagine you really believe that.

[kyoryu]

If there were DC tables to provide examples then there wouldn't be a discrepancy between what a player expects and the DM proscribes.

Many people don't care.

GM: "There's a stone wall here. Difficulty to climb it is 15."
Player: "Oh, I assumed it would be a 10, but I guess it's a harder wall to climb."

- or -

Player: "I've climbed walls like that before, and you said they were 10."
GM: "Yeah, you're right" or "This one's a bit tougher to climb for <reasons>"

That's how a lot of people play, and that interaction is usually a no-op (the first one), or very quick.

I get that it's an issue for you, and am not arguing that. But it's not an objective flaw of the system.

I also dispute that it prevents issues. In my experience, people that can't do one of the things above will invariably argue about something. Again, that doesn't mean that you can't have a preference for more concrete touchstones for DCs. But I dispute that it's a good way to avoid table arguments. I'm not sure it doesn't make them worse... if I know it's a GM call, then I know it's just subjective. If there's a table of modifiers and difficulties, then it creates more room for arguing what does/does not apply, what category it falls into, etc.

[Zarrgon]

The tables provide a baseline players can work with to build their character to be able to do particular things if it matters to the player. The tables are a facilitator for the DM so he doesn't have to think up a number every time a player wants to do something. When a situation arises a table does not explicitly address the DM has a reference point to pick a number fairly.

Except what is the point of a baseline only for the lowest, weakest, and most common of something like a wall, when you full well know nearly every wall you will encounter after extremely low game levels will be higher then that? Once you leave the low level game, that baseline table is gone. It not that such walls don't exist anymore, it is simply more that the characters won't encounter them during an adventure.

Now, granted this is more of a D&D rule problem. The Climb skill only lists walls up to DC 25, so that takes the game up to level five or so. So what about 6th level and above? The DMG adds to the list, but not over 25. Though splatbooks and Epic stuff(that is in the SRD) have ones over 25. Though, oddly, the "Epic" ones are things like Wall of Force, that you will encounter way, way, way, way before you get to epic level.

The "baseline" you're talking about would be a lot more DC 10 to 50, to cover all levels of the game. But D&D does not give you that.

The problem is playing with different DMs in different campaigns but none of the DMs are jerks still results in playing with different rules. It's a bother to me my warlock was Tarzan but my monk was George of the Jungle because the DMs had different opinions on how hard it is to climb a tree.

This has been true from day one of D&D. Even more so for 0E, 1E and 2E. But again, even if you had 1,000 pages of just climb rules, any DM can just toss them out anyway.

Really the ONLY way to do it is to feel out a DM and decide if their game is for you, and that is true for many parts of the game, not just skill checks.

The tables provide a baseline players can work with to build their character to be able to do particular things if it matters to the player. The tables are a facilitator for the DM so he doesn't have to think up a number every time a player wants to do something. When a situation arises a table does not explicitly address the DM has a reference point to pick a number fairly.

This imagined "baseline" is only for a very flat, unimaginative game style. Now not that this is in anyway a bad or wrong game style, but it is objectively unimaginative. And, I will grant you that it is exactly the same style that most published official D&D things. Where in a 20th level adventure the demon horde builds defensive earthwork walls with a DC 10. Or the Dark Lords castle has ''slippery" walls for a big DC of, wow, 25.

Now, I'd guess your your posts that you like this sort of game. The type of game that has just ''normal" stone walls up to DC 25 from game levels 1-20. You would see no problem with an adventure at 20th level and the wall of the lich lords castle of undeath is a Superior Masonry Walls of DC 25.

Now, I'm a whole other game sort of style: the ultra powerful beyond imagination style. So in an adventure at 20th level and the wall of the lich lords castle of undeath is a unliving necromatic poisonous spiked smoking livingbane cursed(greater) spell storing(summon grave ooze) wall. And, that is "just" the walls. And you will never guess the DC of such a wall, assuming a character would want to even try climbing that (I like the grave ooze that appears attacks and grapples and jumps off the wall with it's victim myself).

Raises hand. I wanted to climb a tree to hide from oncoming hostiles. I had to roll Athletics DC 20 with 10 ST and no proficiency. Don't remember what I rolled, but I know it was not a 20. Different campaign. Granted I had to take off my armor for swimming, but the party wanted to swim across a moat, climb a small hill of rocks to reach an empty Keep, climb the wall to get to a low window, and go inside before approaching hostiles could see us. I have 10 ST and no proficiency in Athletics. The number of checks the party needed to make: 0. We got into the Keep because we wanted to.

This describes the different play styles of DMs. All the rules in the world won't change this.

Most of these DC issues are easily solved with some session 0 talk about game expectations.

This is very true.

I'm responding to statements that 5e would do better to have a DC list like 3e does. Some folks have presented it exactly as that. I'm trying to point out why 3e's list wasn't all it's cracked up to be.

Me too. At best the 3x baseline list is an illusion. You can read it and think you know all about whatever, but in reality you have not even scratched the surface. And that only goes times, a hundred, in my game where a poor player of a higher level character will get all shocked at the DC for climbing a wall made of frozen time.

One of the better things 5E did was toss out the micro management of 3X and put things back into the DMs hands. A lot more like pre 3X, where the DM just decided everything.

If there were DC tables to provide examples then there wouldn't be a discrepancy between what a player expects and the DM proscribes.

This would be true, but would also be impossible. Simply put the average D&D creator, especially now a days, can't handle anything out side of plain and simple. Sure they could set DC's for stone walls, bet that would be a "day of hard work for them". But ask them "hey what would be the climb DC for a wall made out of frozen time, and they will likely have a mental breakdown. Like when they listed strange or unique magical effects under Spellcraft at DC 30 or higher. Wow thanks for the help there: strange or unique magical effects DC 30 or higher. They might as well just put a picture where that text was.....

[kyoryu]

One of the better things 5E did was toss out the micro management of 3X and put things back into the DMs hands. A lot more like pre 3X, where the DM just decided everything.

I agree with you, but I think it's important to keep in mind that a number of players (and I suspect Pex is in this category) consider GM judgement to be inherently questionable and a suboptimal fallback that should be used as infrequently as possible.

[EggKookoo]

I agree with you, but I think it's important to keep in mind that a number of players (and I suspect Pex is in this category) consider GM judgement to be inherently questionable and a suboptimal fallback that should be used as infrequently as possible.

Not without justification, of course. A jerk player is a problem that is more easily solved than a jerk DM. And when you have a jerk DM who also positions himself as the be-all end-all rules-deity, well, that's not going to be a fun campaign. So I get that idea. I've been on the other side, with "secret player meetings" where we've had to agree to team up against a jerk DM (and ultimately oust him at the cost of his friendship with some players).

Pex, have you ever DMed? Would you ever consider it?

[Telok]

Debatable. As a DM who is comfortable winging DCs, I much prefer being allowed to do that without the rules prodding the players to second guess my choices.

As a DM I'm fine with it too. As a player with inexperienced DMs it's not fine. I was told that climbing a rope, out of combat, was dc 10 because the DM was being nice. Really the DM had a bad back and even climbing modern ladders was hard for him.

That game stopped for a 15 minute argument. Eventually the DM quit because it was too hard to run the game. Yup, 5e was too hard to run outside of combat, for him. Eventually I stopped plaing with inexperienced DMs because these sorts of things kept happening.

The 5e books don't even have examples of how to use the proficency system. This is basically a reversion to the AD&D proficency system. We have 30+ years of better ways to do this stuff.

[prabe]

I agree with you, but I think it's important to keep in mind that a number of players (and I suspect Pex is in this category) consider GM judgement to be inherently questionable and a suboptimal fallback that should be used as infrequently as possible.

I think the primary difference is between people who've been shaped by run-ins with jerk players, and people who've been shaped by run-ins with jerk GMs. I count myself fortunate that I don't have deep scars either way.

[kyoryu]

Not without justification, of course. A jerk player is a problem that is more easily solved than a jerk DM. And when you have a jerk DM who also positions himself as the be-all end-all rules-deity, well, that's not going to be a fun campaign. So I get that idea. I've been on the other side, with "secret player meetings" where we've had to agree to team up against a jerk DM (and ultimately oust him at the cost of his friendship with some players).

Sure. It can absolutely happen. I just prefer to deal with that by not playing with those people.

My experience is that jerks are gonna jerk. The idea that this can be controlled with rules has never born fruit for me.

I think the primary difference is between people who've been shaped by run-ins with jerk players, and people who've been shaped by run-ins with jerk GMs. I count myself fortunate that I don't have deep scars either way.

Maybe? My experience is that, either side of the screen, a jerk is gonna be a jerk, and rules won't stop that. It might just change how they're being jerks, but that's about it.

Certainly within any type of game that has the amount of inherent leeway as an RPG. You might be able to do a fun game of something like Descent with them, but I'd question that.

[ExLibrisMortis]

As a DM who is comfortable winging DCs, I much prefer being allowed to do that without the rules prodding the players to second guess my choices.

That's a very... dictatorial approach to DMing. I would not want to play with a DM like that. It also begs the question why you need rules at all. After all, you are "a DM who is comfortable winging DCs", so wouldn't you be better off not using the DMG/MM rules? You could wing every number, and not be limited by the rules at all.

In your view, you're the only one who's sets DCs and decides outcomes, so there's no need for rules to provide consistency between people. And from that perspective, rules that would provide structure and consistency are merely limiting. However, in my view, all players--and that includes the DM--are in this game and this setting together, and the rules aren't just providing tools for the DM, they provide a framework that allows different players' contributions to fit together. The game and the world/setting should be open to everyone to tinker with.

[SunderedWorldDM]

That's a very... dictatorial approach to DMing. I would not want to play with a DM like that. It also begs the question why you need rules at all. After all, you are "a DM who is comfortable winging DCs", so wouldn't you be better off not using the DMG/MM rules? You could wing every number, and not be limited by the rules at all.

In your view, you're the only one who's sets DCs and decides outcomes, so there's no need for rules to provide consistency between people. And from that perspective, rules that would provide structure and consistency are merely limiting. However, in my view, all players--and that includes the DM--are in this game and this setting together, and the rules aren't just providing tools for the DM, they provide a framework that allows different players' contributions to fit together. The game and the world/setting should be open to everyone to tinker with.

I'm curious, as a person who DMs in this style, as to what the grievance is, exactly. The DM's job is to interpret player intent into mechanical effect, and a DM who can do that with confidence and speed should be better, right? Since every table is varied anyways, then mechanical variance between tables can be explained in the same way encounter variance is explained: every DM has their own philosophies, guidelines and intuitions. If the player's actions are being resolved and the game is moving forward, what's the matter if this DM has a DC 15 wall where another one would give the wall DC 20?

[prabe]

My experience is that, either side of the screen, a jerk is gonna be a jerk, and rules won't stop that. It might just change how they're being jerks, but that's about it.

Certainly within any type of game that has the amount of inherent leeway as an RPG. You might be able to do a fun game of something like Descent with them, but I'd question that.

I don't disagree. I'm thinking of which one you encountered first, though, or maybe which experience was worse, but the dichotomy breaks down if you were a player and another player was the first jerk you gamed with.

And based on collaborative board games like Arkham Horror, a jerk is a jerk and no fun to game with, even then.

[Unavenger]

I'm curious, as a person who DMs in this style, as to what the grievance is, exactly. The DM's job is to interpret player intent into mechanical effect, and a DM who can do that with confidence and speed should be better, right? Since every table is varied anyways, then mechanical variance between tables can be explained in the same way encounter variance is explained: every DM has their own philosophies, guidelines and intuitions. If the player's actions are being resolved and the game is moving forward, what's the matter if this DM has a DC 15 wall where another one would give the wall DC 20?

Because it means training your climbing, before you even start the game, may or may not be pointless and you don't know which.