Let's Get Real - the DM's responsibility is balance

[OldTrees1]

I just think that being so insistent on a point like "Everyone MUST BE engaged ALL the time." when its hard to find decent players anyway is a sure-fire way to burn your campaign out.

The more niche one's preferences, the fewer other players will have mutually compatible preferences.

Personally I don't think it is hard to find decent players, so I can understand a GM with more niche preferences still being able to find a group of mutually compatible players.

This does not mean I share their preference, but I can understand the self selection that ad_hoc and JackPhoenix did. However it sounds like I addressed your initial comment about not understanding, your current concern about that preference is an informed concern based on your priors.

[Man_Over_Game]

The more niche one's preferences, the fewer other players will have mutually compatible preferences.

Personally I don't think it is hard to find decent players, so I can understand a GM with more niche preferences still being able to find a group of mutually compatible players.

This does not mean I share their preference, but I can understand the self selection that ad_hoc and JackPhoenix did.

As an aside, one interesting thing I've noticed is that the biggest cause for player growth can be power disparity between the players. When a level 3 Moon Druid ignores the DM's warnings and takes out a small army of CR 1 undead, people start to notice what paying attention learning the game can do for them.

[heavyfuel]

@OP

I generally agree that players playing less than optimal characters could use a hand now and again (maybe an extra magic item, maybe some minor numerical bonus, or somesuch), but to claim that it's the DM's sole responsibility to fix everything the designers did wrong is just a ludicrous proposition.

I once read someone in the 3e forums say that "to play a Caster like the people on the forum think casters should be played requires an effort not unlike that of going to grad school" or something to that effect. Your claim is very similar. You can balance the game, but it will require such a large effort on the DM's part, that most are simply unwilling or unable to do so.

*snip*

Spellcasters are fantastic in combat. Anyone who says otherwise, is simply not reading the book.

*snap*

I couldn't agree more with this post, and the particular quoted line really hits the nail on the head.

Fixing the skill system does nothing because all characters are affected equally.

I do disagree here. If everyone is more powerful, the difference in power becomes less significant.

Say you have $100 and I have $200. I have twice as much money as you. But if we both gain $1000 each, now I only have 9% more money than you.

This isn't to say that fixing the skill system is the perfect solution (nor is it to say that I think skills should replicate magic) but fixing skills does far more than "nothing".

A DM that calls for people to make checks for climbing trees is running a boring game in 5e or 3e. The difference is that in 3e the DM is instructed to do so

The underlined part right there is straight up bullcrap.

3e had a much better skill system because it explicitly gave tools to avoid rolling, namely, Take 10 and Take 20. Especially because both Take 10 and Take 20 were player options, not something granted by the DM. The player could choose to Take 10/20. So, out of combat, if you wanted to do something, you just did (assuming you invested somewhat in that skill). Rogues ALWAYS managed to Hide/Move Silently, because 99% of the time, their "Take 10" result would beat the opponent's natural 20. Fighters and Barbarians could ALWAYS Climb trees and walls, because they could easily beat the low-ish DCs with Take 10.

5e's lack of both such explicit mechanics means players are always at the mercy of either the dice or of the DM allowing them to do stuff.

You can't, in 5e, point at some rules text and say "I do this because that's what my character does" unless you're playing a spellcaster. You have to either roll, or beg the DM.

[OldTrees1]

As an aside, one interesting thing I've noticed is that the biggest cause for player growth can be power disparity between the players. When a level 3 Moon Druid ignores the DM's warnings and takes out a small army of CR 1 undead, people start to notice what paying attention can do for them.

I apologize, I failed to parse this post. I am reading your other posts to see if you accidentally quoted me and I am trying to figure out how a PC ignoring the DM warning and surviving shows the benefit of paying attention. Again, I apologize for failing to parse the post.

Until someone complains that skills are too damn powerful at your table, we're probably not making skills good enough.

Indeed. There were times in 3E where someone complained a skill was too powerful. Those skill usages were exceptions rather than the norm.

[Man_Over_Game]

I apologize, I failed to parse this post. I am reading your other posts to see if you accidentally quoted me and I am trying to figure out how a PC ignoring the DM warning and surviving shows the benefit of paying attention. Again, I apologizing for failing to parse the post.

Nah, you're good, I realize what I said was very contradictory.

A good DM isn't going to be throwing problems at a low-level party that they shouldn't be able to handle. Low-level Moon Druids are more powerful than almost anyone gives them credit for. The only way a Moon Druid is going to get their full value is if they took on a challenge the DM was not meaning for them to take head on. By "Paying Attention", I had meant that players can do some really cool stuff if they paid attention to what their capabilities are and how the mechanics can help them get what they want. When you don't take things seriously, and another player is just flat out better than you, you start to take inventory on how you could be better.

But I didn't deliver that message very well, sorry about that.

I guess a better example of the message I was trying to convey would be something like a veteran making a Mask of Many Faces Warlock. Somethign that shows how optimization and learning the game can give you more of a game than you were originally expecting, and that just 'coasting' means you might miss out on a lot of stuff. It's something I'm noticing at my current able, where everyone is slowly starting to pay more attention to interesting powers and are considering changes to their gameplay to do more with their characters, mostly just because we have one experienced player who isn't willing to dumb everything down on their behalf.

[JackPhoenix]

The underlined part right there is straight up bullcrap.

3e had a much better skill system because it explicitly gave tools to avoid rolling, namely, Take 10 and Take 20. Especially because both Take 10 and Take 20 were player options, not something granted by the DM. The player could choose to Take 10/20.

Unless the DM said there's a penalty for failure or not enough time so you can't Take 20, or the situation is too threatening or you're too distracted to Take 10.

Rogues ALWAYS managed to Hide/Move Silently, because 99% of the time, their "Take 10" result would beat the opponent's natural 20.

Sure, if there's no enemy to use those skills against. But opposed checks pretty much always fall under the "being threatened" clause that prevents you from using Take 10.

5e's lack of both such explicit mechanics means players are always at the mercy of either the dice or of the DM allowing them to do stuff.

You mean like this: "To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task."? It's basically Take 20, only better, because it takes half the time, and you actually succeed, while you could still fail even with Take 20. As for Take 10, that's not needed, because the game assumes you can actually do stuff without rolling if the outcome isn't in doubt, and failure isn't interesting. You know, just like in situations where you could Take 10.

You can't, in 5e, point at some rules text and say "I do this because that's what my character does" unless you're playing a spellcaster. You have to either roll, or beg the DM.

Of course you can.
"Extra Attack: You can attack twice instead of once".
"Wanderer: You have an excellent memory for maps and geography, and you can always recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth."
"Keen Mind: You always know which way is north.
You always know the number of hours left before the next sunrise or sunset.
You can accurately recall anything you have seen or heard within the past month."
I could go on, but I've got better things to do than copy half the book, and I think I've made my point.

[heavyfuel]

Unless the DM said there's a penalty for failure or not enough time so you can't Take 20, or the situation is too threatening or you're too distracted to Take 10.



Sure, if there's no enemy to use those skills against. But opposed checks pretty much always fall under the "being threatened" clause that prevents you from using Take 10.



You mean like this: "To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task."? It's basically Take 20, only better, because it takes half the time, and you actually succeed, while you could still fail even with Take 20. As for Take 10, that's not needed, because the game assumes you can actually do stuff without rolling if the outcome isn't in doubt, and failure isn't interesting. You know, just like in situations where you could Take 10.



Of course you can.
"Extra Attack: You can attack twice instead of once".
"Wanderer: You have an excellent memory for maps and geography, and you can always recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth."
"Keen Mind: You always know which way is north.
You always know the number of hours left before the next sunrise or sunset.
You can accurately recall anything you have seen or heard within the past month."
I could go on, but I've got better things to do than copy half the book, and I think I've made my point.

You seem to fall under the (common) misunderstanding that "threatening" and "distracting" are basically any time you're in danger. It's not. Specifically, Take 10 is used to avoid danger. There's a thread over at the 3e forum that lists the RAW examples where the books explicitly says you can take 10, and... There are PLENTY of examples. Basically, if you're not in combat, you can Take 10.


I'll admit I didn't recall this rule. It's very nice to know. Now all we need is Take 10!


Extra Attack doesn't count because I'm talking about utility, not damage.

Keen Mind is definitely up there as far as mundane utility goes, unfortunately, hardly any non-caster has the space in their build for a +1 Int feat (if feats are even allowed to start).

Wanderer explicitly says you have to ask the DM with "provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth". Druids, OTOH, can just create sustenance, regardless of anything else (okay, technically they need a Sprig of Mistletoe, which isn't nearly as big a restriction)

[Cheesegear]

This point seems rather flimsy given we have no objective definition of fair...

We do though. We have the DMG and Xanathar's:
- The DMG indicates CR per player/party level, per encounter, per day.
- Xanathar's further refines and/or simplifies it, depending on how you look at it.

That is what the game assumes. Now as we know, CR isn't perfect. But it is the guideline that the designers follow, and it's the guideline that most DMs follow.

instead it's more like "Good scenario design should produce scenarios where everyone has the opportunity (but not obligation) to be engaged in something they're interested in during each scene that will aid the party" combined with "good D&D challenges should involve multiple members of the party".

We're agreed:
1. Players are not obligated to participate in any given scenario.
2. Good scenarios involve multiple members of the party, but not necessarily all members of the party.

In that case it's totally fine if players check out during the game. It happens. It's fine. Wait until the player re-engages.

What sucks as a DM, is that when you design an scenario that involves multiple members of the party, some of those members that you designed it for, just aren't interested.
'I made you what you wanted!?' But the player is checked out. I guess I'll go **** myself.

Say you have $100 and I have $200. I have twice as much money as you. But if we both gain $1000 each, now I only have 9% more money than you.

False equivalence.
Say you $100, and I have $200 and a car. I have twice as much money as you, and a car. But if we both gain $1000 each, now I only have 9% more money than you, but I also have a car. And I can use that car to make even more money, and I can use the even more money to buy an even better car.

Hint; The car is 'spells', and some spells grant skill bonuses and skill advantage.

Everyone has access to Skills. Everyone. Even when you aren't proficient you can still use Skills and Tools.
You can not, 'just cast Spells'.

[Pex]

Unless the DM said there's a penalty for failure or not enough time so you can't Take 20, or the situation is too threatening or you're too distracted to Take 10.



Sure, if there's no enemy to use those skills against. But opposed checks pretty much always fall under the "being threatened" clause that prevents you from using Take 10.

You can't Take 10 when in combat, except for level 10+ Rogues if they choose to take that talent. However, we're talking about non-combat, so that's irrelevant. You can choose to Take 10 out of combat, but it's possible you don't have a high enough enough modifier yet so you're better off rolling. Eventually you can get high enough. Take 20 works when you don't care how long it takes (it's two minutes), and there are no consequences for failure because it's assumed you failed before you succeed. Therefore you can't Take 20 to climb a wall because falling matters, but you can Take 10 because Take 10 only means you accept the average result and you can have a high enough climb modifier to succeed. You Take 20 to search a room, for example, which presumes a thorough search of everything and you'll find what it is you need to find if anything special and no DM gotcha of "Ha, you didn't say you check the ceiling!". Take 10 happens a lot more than Take 20, and all it means is you resolve the skill check as if you rolled a Natural 10. No extra time required, but not in combat or other immediate threat which is fine. Generally when we're talking out of combat utility it's de facto out of combat and not being threatened.

You mean like this: "To speed things up, assume that a character spending ten times the normal amount of time needed to complete a task automatically succeeds at that task."? It's basically Take 20, only better, because it takes half the time, and you actually succeed, while you could still fail even with Take 20. As for Take 10, that's not needed, because the game assumes you can actually do stuff without rolling if the outcome isn't in doubt, and failure isn't interesting. You know, just like in situations where you could Take 10.

That's the Mother May I. It's up to the DM to decide if you can do that. Once the DM says you can't tough luck, you can't, too bad you're not playing with that other DM who says you can. The ability of a non-spellcaster to do things is totally DM dependent, never player choice. When the DM says you must roll, again tough luck for you if he chooses a higher DC than what a different DM would have chosen. That is what is not desired. We want the non-spellcaster to be able to do things because he wants to, not asking the DM for permission for everything.

Of course you can.
"Extra Attack: You can attack twice instead of once".
"Wanderer: You have an excellent memory for maps and geography, and you can always recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth."
"Keen Mind: You always know which way is north.
You always know the number of hours left before the next sunrise or sunset.
You can accurately recall anything you have seen or heard within the past month."
I could go on, but I've got better things to do than copy half the book, and I think I've made my point.

Feats and background are nice, but the idea here was to incorporate the Skill System into allowing non-spellcasters to do Things because they want to. Feats, while nice, have a higher cost. Background powers are also cool and wonderful, glad to have them. Some people would prefer non-spellcasters be given button powers to affect non-combat things. Still, the idea was to let Skills be the Thing that allow non-spellcasters to do extraordinary things because they want to, not DM permission. Spellcasters don't need DM permission. They cast the spell, and it automatically does what it says it does. The DM never has to decide if no roll is necessary. If a DC is necessary it is distinctly defined what it is: 8 + relevant ability score modifier + proficiency. The DM never has to make it up.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We're agreed:
1. Players are not obligated to participate in any given scenario.
2. Good scenarios involve multiple members of the party, but not necessarily all members of the party.

In that case it's totally fine if players check out during the game. It happens. It's fine. Wait until the player re-engages.

What sucks as a DM, is that when you design an scenario that involves multiple members of the party, some of those members that you designed it for, just aren't interested.
'I made you what you wanted!?' But the player is checked out. I guess I'll go **** myself.

Personally, if I've designed a scenario targeting a particular member and they don't engage, that's a signal that one of two things is true:
1) I screwed up in my design and need to recalibrate
2) The player is substantially out of it (ie this is a one-off fluke due to real life concerns/tiredness/etc). Which happens.

If either of those is happening often, then that's a red flag that something's wrong. Thankfully, that's pretty rare at my tables. Maybe my players are just very willing to bite, or maybe they're responding to the efforts I've put in to the world. I've found that the more lack-luster and "flat" the world is, the harder it is to get them to engage. Yes, even the ones that are kinda fringy/low-engagement anyway.

But I will say that if I designed the scenario so that there's optional information available if people do <things>, and no one does <things>, they don't get the optional info. Which may make their jobs harder. Example, spoilered below because KorvinStarmast needs to stay out of that spoiler.

Spoiler: KorvinStarmast stay out

Show

The party didn't explore one of the rooms in the underground tunnels they're currently in. Which means they have no clue that a purple worm, enslaved by some cultists, is waiting for them at the other end. Whereas if they'd have checked the room with sunlight, they'd have found evidence of the ritual used to summon and control it. They think that the "perfectly-smooth, perfectly-10' diameter" tunnels are the result of some sort of elemental manipulation.

Also, because they didn't go down some passages (preferring to do a frontal assault), they missed both some treasure and an opportunity to ambush a group of cultists unaware. Which would have made their jobs way easier.

These are basic exploration examples, but the same principle applies to other things. The actions needed to resolve a situation are generally a subset of all the actions that can assist in the resolution of the situation, and only doing the bare minimum successfully means you only get the bare minimum successful outcome. Not any of the tasty treats sprinkled along the alternate paths. The bare minimum successful outcome is generally an unmitigated success; there are only very rarely cases where the bare minimum is only a partial success. Partially doing the bare minimum successfully means you get partial success or success with a cost. Doing more than the minimum means you get degrees of success. And generally, doing more than the minimum requires proportionally more of the party to be involved.

[heavyfuel]

False equivalence.
Say you $100, and I have $200 and a car. I have twice as much money as you, and a car. But if we both gain $1000 each, now I only have 9% more money than you, but I also have a car. And I can use that car to make even more money, and I can use the even more money to buy an even better car.

Hint; The car is 'spells', and some spells grant skill bonuses and skill advantage.

Everyone has access to Skills. Everyone. Even when you aren't proficient you can still use Skills and Tools.
You can not, 'just cast Spells'.

Ehh, not really a false equivalency because I never said (or even implied) that skills are equivalent to spells.

In you car example, you're the only one with access to a motor vehicle, but then we are both granted access to quality public transportation. The car is still more practical, so you'll keep using the car most of the time. And the car still does things public transport can't do (like make you more money, or take you places public transport doesn't go). But now I'm not nearly as screwed up as I was before.

I said it in my previous post. It's not a perfect solution, but it's not nothing either.

[Cheesegear]

I said it in my previous post. It's not a perfect solution, but it's not nothing either.

My solution involves significant reduction in the number of spells in the game.
My solution involves significant increase in the number of magic items in the game that put back those spells.
This would require a lot of work. Work I'm also not particularly willing to do.

I'm a huge fan of Charms, Oils and Potions. Limited items that do things, that any character can use. I hand them out all the time as I'm not really a fan of giving players a straight-up, direct power increase via way of a Flametongue Sword, for example, outside of a significant story element.

PhoenixPhyre has a decent list of utility spells earlier in the thread. Many of which could be given to players as Rods or Wands.

But also I remember someone on this forum had gone through the Spell List, and had arbitrarily decided which AoE spells could be used as grenades which I also think was a good idea.

[heavyfuel]

My solution involves significant reduction in the number of spells in the game.
My solution involves significant increase in the number of magic items in the game that put back those spells.
This would require a lot of work. Work I'm also not particularly willing to do.

I'm a huge fan of Charms, Oils and Potions. Limited items that do things, that any character can use. I hand them out all the time as I'm not really a fan of giving players a straight-up, direct power increase via way of a Flametongue Sword, for example, outside of a significant story element.

PhoenixPhyre has a decent list of utility spells earlier in the thread. Many of which could be given to players as Rods or Wands.

But also I remember someone on this forum had gone through the Spell List, and had arbitrarily decided which AoE spells could be used as grenades which I also think was a good idea.

I don't understand why you're arguing with me. I'm just saying that a better skill system would - proportionally - benefit martials more than casters and you're talking about your grandiose plan.

It's a good plan. It just has nothing to do with my point about improving the skill system

[Pex]

I don't understand why you're arguing with me. I'm just saying that a better skill system would - proportionally - benefit martials more than casters and you're talking about your grandiose plan.

It's a good plan. It just has nothing to do with my point about improving the skill system

Eh, I'm not a fan of it because spellcasters are entitled to cast spells. That's the whole point of them, and spells are allowed to be powerful. Devil is in the details. I don't mind a spellcaster can never cast all spells in existence for its class. For example, I would not object to hypothetical 6E bringing back the 2E sphere system for clerics to determine what spells they get given it's more balanced and fair than what 2E did including the Priest's Handbook, but the language used appears to over restrict spell access I would not care for. Given Cheesegear hates giving players permanent magic items that doesn't bode well for my enjoyment if he got his way. I like having permanent magic items that boost my effectiveness in combat, and I do not and will not apologize for it.

There is room to curtail spellcaster power a bit, but there is a point where one can go too far they're not fun to play any more. If one accepts non-spellcasters are still lacking, my preferred solution is to focus on boosting them rather than tearing down spellcasters. Improving the Skill System is one way to do it. It has been suggested in a thread many months ago that in addition to mundane skill use there could be a separate supernatural skill use only non-spellcasters can do. For example, using 5E terms, everyone can jump their strength score in feet. The idea would be only martials, maybe depending on class and level, can jump twice their strength score in feet at Athletics DC 10 or whatever. Anyone can climb a rock wall at DC X, but perhaps only the Rogue can climb a smooth wall at DC X + 5 where the Wizard would cast Spider Climb. Devil in the details, but that's the idea.

[Cheesegear]

Given Cheesegear hates giving players permanent magic items that doesn't bode well for my enjoyment if he got his way...

Not what I said. Permanent magic items are an expect part of the game. Especially at higher levels when hostiles have resistances and immunities to nonmagical attacks, and of course you have to hand out magic weapons and armour because Rogues, Fighters and Barbarians can't cast spells.

What I don't like 'You find a chest, inside is a...Ring of Warmth, and Adamantine Breastplate, a Sword of Life Stealing, a Ring of Free Action, and a Mantle of Spell Resistance.'
Why? The DMG said it was time for a Treasure Hoard and that's what's in it, so I guess you get it.

No. Those items sure would exist. But they'd be being worn and used. The bad guy for the session would laugh at you as your spells slide off his cape. The Dao actually knows what he has.

The idea would be only martials, maybe depending on class and level, can jump twice their strength score in feet at Athletics DC 10 or whatever. Anyone can climb a rock wall at DC X, but perhaps only the Rogue can climb a smooth wall at DC X + 5 where the Wizard would cast Spider Climb. Devil in the details, but that's the idea.

There are hints of this in the game. The Champion's Remarkable Athlete, a Rogue's Reliable Talent, etc.

But yes. Buff non-casters. Don't buff casters.
Blanket buffs are not the answer.

[qube]

That's the challenge inherent in being a DM. There will ALWAYS be a player who optimizes their character sheet

If my bike has a flat tire, it's still true that I can drive with it, and yes, it's still true different people drive different speeds.

... but it's also absolutely correct to point out that my bike shouldn't have a flat tire in the first place. And if I bought it that way, I'm going to go back demanding they fix it.

"If I can fix it, it's not broken," is not a good mentality.

Exactly

[Glorthindel]

What I don't like 'You find a chest, inside is a...Ring of Warmth, and Adamantine Breastplate, a Sword of Life Stealing, a Ring of Free Action, and a Mantle of Spell Resistance.'
Why? The DMG said it was time for a Treasure Hoard and that's what's in it, so I guess you get it.

No. Those items sure would exist. But they'd be being worn and used. The bad guy for the session would laugh at you as your spells slide off his cape. The Dao actually knows what he has.

Years ago I played in a Hackmaster campaign, and due to being in a rush before one session (or us going a different way), the DM was caught running a bit of the adventure as he read it. In one room we fought, and took out (quite easily) an Orc Warlord, partially because he wasn't wearing armour. When the DM read the rest of the room when we were searching in, surprise, surprise, a suit of +1 chainmail was described sitting on an armour rack beside his throne. Now, that might have been a cool detail if we had surprised the guy, but due to a fight in the room previous, he had had time to put that armour on if the DM had realised it was there. We were rather brutal with our mockery

[Azuresun]

That's the Mother May I. It's up to the DM to decide if you can do that. Once the DM says you can't tough luck, you can't, too bad you're not playing with that other DM who says you can. The ability of a non-spellcaster to do things is totally DM dependent, never player choice. When the DM says you must roll, again tough luck for you if he chooses a higher DC than what a different DM would have chosen. That is what is not desired. We want the non-spellcaster to be able to do things because he wants to, not asking the DM for permission for everything.

Then it's a good thing the DM is trustworthy (if not, I wouldn't be playing with them, after all), and players don't need protecting from DM's by an ability to jab their fingers at a paragraph and say "Suck it!".

[Unoriginal]

That's the Mother May I. It's up to the DM to decide if you can do that.

The whole game is like Mother May I, by those standards.

Once the DM says you can't tough luck, you can't, too bad you're not playing with that other DM who says you can. The ability of a non-spellcaster to do things is totally DM dependent, never player choice. When the DM says you must roll, again tough luck for you if he chooses a higher DC than what a different DM would have chosen. That is what is not desired. We want the non-spellcaster to be able to do things because he wants to, not asking the DM for permission for everything.

Wizard player: "So I cast Fireball at the goblin horde..."

DM: "No you don't."

Wizard player: "What?"

DM: "I don't allow Fireball at my table, since last week. It's overpowered and unimaginative."

Wizard player: "Well it's the only AoE spell I have prepared today, and you didn't tell us about Fireball not being allowed. Can I switch my spell list?"

DM: "Not before your next long rest."

Wizard player: "..."

Then it's a good thing the DM is trustworthy (if not, I wouldn't be playing with them, after all), and players don't need protecting from DM's by an ability to jab their fingers at a paragraph and say "Suck it!".

Indeed.

And if the DM is actually untrustworthy (because you didn't realize that person was a jerk before now, which happens), then the untrustworthy DM will NOT care about what any paragraph says.

The idea that a DM is both a petty control freak *and* someone who can be foiled by pointing at the book simply doesn't hold water.

[Burley]

I've lately been experiencing DMs who focus very hard on their own fun, at the expense of the players. DM PCs that bog down the pacing; random monsters and races that don't fit the scenery or narrative because they're "cute."

I think the point of a game is to have fun. The players need to be having fun or it won't be a game, anymore. DMs sometimes need to sacrifice their own interests and fun in favor of their players'.


Oh, also, it bugs the nuts outta me when a DM says "No," to a player, especially when they're shooting down a clever idea that happened to solve their puzzle. (I cast Web on the giant bird. "Bird saves." I cast again. "No, you can't cast the same spell twice in a row.")

[Xervous]

The main value in having consistent rules for things like skill use is in delivering a transferable experience. Some people see value in not having to relearn as much stuff going table to table, but a lot of people only play at one table so they never really encounter the transition.

[tKUUNK]

Totally agree with the original post. Very insightful.

A DM can break game balance in a heartbeat. (example, introducing a magic item which is too powerful)

On the other hand I've played with DMs who do a great job roping every player into an amazing story. In these cases, the game just feels balanced no matter what class you play.

(All that said, a game actually being balanced in its design helps, too!)

[Pex]

Then it's a good thing the DM is trustworthy (if not, I wouldn't be playing with them, after all), and players don't need protecting from DM's by an ability to jab their fingers at a paragraph and say "Suck it!".

If that were true then no one would be complaining non-spellcasters can't do stuff outside of combat. It's not about the quality of the DM but of the non-spellcaster able to affect his own destiny by his own power.

The whole game is like Mother May I, by those standards.



Wizard player: "So I cast Fireball at the goblin horde..."

DM: "No you don't."

Wizard player: "What?"

DM: "I don't allow Fireball at my table, since last week. It's overpowered and unimaginative."

Wizard player: "Well it's the only AoE spell I have prepared today, and you didn't tell us about Fireball not being allowed. Can I switch my spell list?"

DM: "Not before your next long rest."

Wizard player: "..."

That is being pedantic having nothing to do with the point.

[Unoriginal]

If that were true then no one would be complaining non-spellcasters can't do stuff outside of combat. It's not about the quality of the DM but of the non-spellcaster able to affect his own destiny by his own power.

All characters are equally able to affect their own destinies by their own power.

A DM can just as easily says "no, you can't" to a lvl 20 Wizard than they can say it to a lvl 1 Ranger.

That is being pedantic having nothing to do with the point.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but from what I understood, your point in that post was that spellcasters weren't subjected to the same "are not able to do things because they want to, without asking the DM for permission for everything" issue that you claimed non-casters have.

How does me showing that casters are also factually subjected to it pedantic or having nothing to do with the point?

[OldTrees1]

All characters are equally able to affect their own destinies by their own power.

A DM can just as easily says "no, you can't" to a lvl 20 Wizard than they can say it to a lvl 1 Ranger.

1)
In practice I have found it is easier for me to say "yes" or "no" to something with clear bounds in the rules than for me to adjudicate whether or not to say "yes" or "no" to something where the rules are fuzzy or missing. It is easier for me to evaluating an existing ruling than to make a new ruling.

2)
In practice I have found players can predict some PC capabilities more accurately than others. If an area has clear bounds then the Player is likely to expect that default, plan based on that default, and then confirm if the default is accurate at my table. If an area has fuzzy or missing rules then the Player is likely to avoid assuming competency and instead either ask me if it is possible, or drop the idea and instead focus on something concrete they can plan around.


While acknowledging these effects does make the discussion more complicated, it is a more accurate description.

[Unoriginal]

1)
In practice I have found it is easier for me to say "yes" or "no" to something with clear bounds in the rules than for me to adjudicate whether or not to say "yes" or "no" to something where the rules are fuzzy or missing. It is easier for me to evaluating an existing ruling than to make a new ruling.

That doesn't change that all DMs have to make their own rulings on those, be it based on existing ones or brand new ones.

And that's when we're talking about good faith DMing. Bad faith DMing won't care about any ruling at all, just what the DM wants at this specific time/situation.

2)
In practice I have found players can predict some PC capabilities more accurately than others. If an area has clear bounds then the Player is likely to expect that default, plan based on that default, and then confirm if the default is accurate at my table. If an area has fuzzy or missing rules then the Player is likely to avoid assuming competency and instead either ask me if it is possible, or drop the idea and instead focus on something concrete they can plan around.

But no matter if competency is assumed before or after they asked you, they still asked you.

"Can I use Green Flame Blade to light the brazier?" is just as much DM-intervention-dependent as "I use Firebolt to light the brazier. Does it work?".

[OldTrees1]

That doesn't change that all DMs have to make their own rulings on those, be it based on existing ones or brand new ones.

And that's when we're talking about good faith DMing. Bad faith DMing won't care about any ruling at all, just what the DM wants at this specific time/situation.

But no matter if competency is assumed before or after they asked you, they still asked you.

"Can I use Green Flame Blade to light the brazier?" is just as much DM-intervention-dependent as "I use Firebolt to light the brazier. Does it work?".

Yes, but please consider the impact of that in practice difference between concrete rules vs fuzzy/missing rules. When there are concrete rules the Player will tend to guess what the GM will answer, and then ask the GM. When there are fuzzy/missing rules the Player will tend to ask first OR drop the idea entirely.

This is the mechanical impact of expectation vs uncertainty. Considering this aspect makes the discussion more complicated. Everything is DM-intervention-dependent, but that does not mean Players interface with everything the same.

[Pex]

All characters are equally able to affect their own destinies by their own power.

A DM can just as easily says "no, you can't" to a lvl 20 Wizard than they can say it to a lvl 1 Ranger.



Correct me if I'm mistaken, but from what I understood, your point in that post was that spellcasters weren't subjected to the same "are not able to do things because they want to, without asking the DM for permission for everything" issue that you claimed non-casters have.

How does me showing that casters are also factually subjected to it pedantic or having nothing to do with the point?

Because we're assuming a DM being fair, wanting the game fun for everyone, not being a jerk, etc. It's about what the rules say. When a non-spellcaster wants to do something with a Skill the DM has to decide everything on how it works. When the spellcaster casts a spell how it works is already determined.

[Unoriginal]

When the spellcaster casts a spell how it works is already determined.

Is it?

I'd be very grateful if you could humor me and answer those three questions, then:

1) Can you light a candle with Green Flame Blade?

2) Can you create a fight-capable shortsword out of ice with Shape Water?

3) Can Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound detect if a creature is hostile to its caster if said creature didn't do anything toward the caster yet but is planning to (ex: an assassin disguised as one of the caster's allies, who is walking toward the caster to stab them)?

EDIT:

And more importantly, would you consider that a DM who answers differently than you fail to meet the "a DM being fair, wanting the game fun for everyone, not being a jerk, etc." assumption?

[Pex]

Is it?

I'd be very grateful if you could humor me and answer those three questions, then:

1) Can you light a candle with Green Flame Blade?

2) Can you create a fight-capable shortsword out of ice with Shape Water?

3) Can Mordenkainen's Faithful Hound detect if a creature is hostile to its caster if said creature didn't do anything toward the caster yet but is planning to (ex: an assassin disguised as one of the caster's allies, who is walking toward the caster to stab them)?

EDIT:

And more importantly, would you consider that a DM who answers differently than you fail to meet the "a DM being fair, wanting the game fun for everyone, not being a jerk, etc." assumption?

More pedantry. I will not justify every spell for you.