OOTS #1246 - The Discussion Thread

[Peelee]

Kind of seems like both DM and player are being jerks.

My scenario specifically and deliberately did not resolve whether the door was opened, I should note.

For the record, my scenario is not dissimilar to things I'll say IRL in games with close friends with exactly as much seriousness as it was presented here.

[KorvinStarmast]

{Snip Scenario}

That one sounds plausible. *golf clap*

[Peelee]

That one sounds plausible. *golf clap*

That also sounds like a crappy DM, if we're being serious.

Player asks if they can make a dungeoneering check. DM says no.

Another player tries to solve it with the zero knowledge or guidance from the DM. DM hurts them and gives a negative modifier to stats.

DM then lets the first player dungeoneering check to know that was a bad idea.

If i were at that table, I would have a chat with the DM about that.

[Hurkyl]

That also sounds like a crappy DM, if we're being serious.

Player asks if they can make a dungeoneering check. DM says no.

I guess it depends on how long the silence is. The scenario I visualize from the description is that Player2 butts in before Player1 ultimately decides to respond and/or the DM decides there has been enough silence to implicitly answer his question and could think up a way to continue.

For fun, I can visualize it in character.

Character1: Hrm. There's some sort of contraption. Anyone know much about those?

Character2: Just force it. *Twist* Ow!

Character1: Can I continue looking at it now?

[Peelee]

I guess it depends on how long the silence is. The scenario I visualize from the description is that Player2 butts in before Player1 ultimately decides to respond and/or the DM decides there has been enough silence to implicitly answer his question and could think up a way to continue.

For fun, I can visualize it in character.

Character1: Hrm. There's some sort of contraption. Anyone know much about those?

Character2: Just force it. *Twist* Ow!

Character1: Can I continue looking at it now?

That's fair. I was thinking of at least 3 seconds, which is fairly extended after a simple question like that, especially with people averting their gaze.

[Wintermoot]

That also sounds like a crappy DM, if we're being serious.

Player asks if they can make a dungeoneering check. DM says no.

He didn't say no, did he. He pointed out that the game has a skill already in it for finding and disabling traps and opening locked doors. Its "disable device". Why should someone without that skill be able to just fast-talk their way into doing it with some other skill like "dungeoneering"? What if they wanted to use Knowledge: Heraldry or Animal Handling? Imagine if you were player2 who HAS put points into disable device, but player1 who is louder and faster on the draw convinced the DM to let him do the job with the wrong skill. How does that make player2 feel?

Another player tries to solve it with the zero knowledge or guidance from the DM. DM hurts them and gives a negative modifier to stats.

The door is a trap. The trap was decided before hand. If you trigger the trap by trying to open the door you suffer the effects of the trap. Do... have you ever had a trap in your game before?
Is this not how traps work in your game? Am I doing traps wrong?

DM then lets the first player dungeoneering check to know that was a bad idea.

After realizing that no one at the table has disable device, rather than stopping the adventure in its track, the DM makes a rule-zero decision to let the game proceed by letting them use the wrong skill because the explanation was plausable.

If i were at that table, I would have a chat with the DM about that.

You want to have a chat about me not letting you bully me into letting you use the wrong skills and actually having traps with adverse effects?
Well, glad we aren't at the same table then.

[Riftwolf]

Nah, it's super easy.

Player: "Bob twists the vault door super hard, that should open it."
DM: "Why would you think that?"
Player: "Well, Bob thinks it. And since Bob has high Int and Wis, and a lot of points in Dungeoneering, he would probably know a thing or two about how to open vault doors."
Dm: *weeps into his arms*

Player: My character isn't stupid so the stupid thing I'm doing can't be stupid as a smart character is doing it.

[bunsen_h]

Nah, it's super easy.

Player: "Bob twists the vault door super hard, that should open it."
DM: "Why would you think that?"
Player: "Well, Bob thinks it. And since Bob has high Int and Wis, and a lot of points in Dungeoneering, he would probably know a thing or two about how to open vault doors."
Dm: *weeps into his arms*

DM: "To twist the door would require giant strength, or the equivalent. It appears to be made of reinforced steel, with no hinges visible."

[Peelee]

He didn't say no, did he.

Yes. Language contains context. Contextually, the DM said no. The DM then specifically asked if anyone else had the more appropriate skill, and nobody answered (contextually, the party was saying no). That's all fine. The DM could then tell the player they can try to make the check, with appropriate adjustments. Instead, after the party knows the player can't make the check, another player tries something and gets negative modifiers for it. If this was a trap, then not allowing the player who actively wants to investigate the trap to investigate the trap and then springing the trap is, in fact, not a DM tactic that I would appreciate. If you play like that, I'm not going to say you're doing traps wrong, but I am very glad that I do not play at your table.

[Wintermoot]

Yes. Language contains context. Contextually, the DM said no. The DM then specifically asked if anyone else had the more appropriate skill, and nobody answered (contextually, the party was saying no). That's all fine. The DM could then tell the player they can try to make the check, with appropriate adjustments. Instead, after the party knows the player can't make the check, another player tries something and gets negative modifiers for it. If this was a trap, then not allowing the player who actively wants to investigate the trap to investigate the trap and then springing the trap is, in fact, not a DM tactic that I would appreciate. If you play like that, I'm not going to say you're doing traps wrong, but I am very glad that I do not play at your table.

And I'm likewise glad you do not play at my table. From this singular interaction, you have determined that I am a bad DM. I have determined that you seem like a player who gets very cranky and upset and angry when they don't get their way and control the spotlight. I may be as wrong about you as you are about me, but we'll never know. I won't bother going any further in addressing your thoughts around language and context beyond pointing out, as others already have, that the singular way you "read" my scenario does not match the intended way I "wrote" it.

the intention was closer to

"playerA, a boisterous quick thinker, is met with a common obstacle and tries to wheedle their way around it by using the wrong skill because they don't have the right skill"

"the DM points out they are using the wrong skill and asks if anyone else has the right skill because he knows that playerA, a boisterous quick thinker, often bowls over the quieter, slower more introverted other players. To his surprise, no one seems to have the right skill. This is certainly a failure of the GM who should have a general idea what skills the party has and not build challenges they can't possibly overcome or deal with."

"while the DM is waiting for a response and thinking, playerB, a noted impatient who often just attacks things, steps in and wants to physically deal with the challenge."

"the DM let's him and deals with the trap outcome. As an aside, I only included this in the scenario in order to demonstrate what triggering the trap does and to match the other scenarios being presented"

"after playerB is injured by the trap, the DM has made a decision to let playerA use his dungeoneering in place of disable device so he can move forward with the game and not bog it down more."

Therefore, to my perspective and the perspective of at least one other poster, the "context" failure is on your side as the inferrer, not my side as the implier.

Enjoy your game, I will enjoy mine.

[Dion]

Player1: "Hmmm. I have high Int and Wis and lots of ranks in Dungeoneering. Can I use that to try and figure out something about this door?”

Honestly, that sounds like the player is using the correct application of the dungeoneering skill.

DM: "Okay. After a few minutes of study you figure out that its a trick knob. If you turn it the way its meant to turn, you seize up the lock and trigger the trap that damages you. But if you pull out and turn the opposite way, it unlocks"

Hmm… I disagree with the DM here. In my opinion, telling the player how to defeat a puzzle trap isnt the best application of the dungeoneering skill.

[Peelee]

And I'm likewise glad you do not play at my table. From this singular interaction, you have determined that I am a bad DM.

I have determined that you use tactics I would not enjoy. Others may. I'm glad you found ones who do. I am simply not one of them.

As for your determination as to my play style, I have already said that while I do say things similar to the initial back and forth in my games I also said that I do that jokingly. I don't actually attempt things like that

[Wintermoot]

Honestly, that sounds like the player is using the correct application of the dungeoneering skill.

I'm really not sure what you would like to give someone rolling a dungeoneering roll about a door other than knowledge about it being trapped and locked. Perhaps you can give an example of what you think would be the result of such a check. Still, I'll take that criticism. I should've written it as "Can I figure out a way to open the door" rather than just "Can I tell anything about the door." My fault for not being elaborate enough in my scenario for time constraints. I should've done something like:


DM: "You see a massive locked vault door before you."

Player1: "Hmmm. I have high Int and Wis and lots of ranks in Dungeoneering. Can I use that to try and figure out something about this door?"

DM: "Okay make a roll"

Player1: "42"

DM: "It is a massive, solid metal door, deeply embedded in the stone around it. It appears to be ancient, as the stone itself has shifted in around it. Still there is a mechanism to open the door by twisting a knob, but it appears corroded and stuck, unused for years. You suspect it is locked and trapped."

Player1: "Okay I rolled pretty high, can I figure out how to open it or get past any traps?"

DM: "Well usually it would be a disable device check... does anybody have that?"

Hmm… it sounds like DM isn’t using the skill in the way intended.

In my opinion, telling the player how to defeat a puzzle trap isnt the best application of the dungeoneering skill.

I'm well aware the DM isn't using the skill as intended. I pointed that out directly. He's allowing the player to use it in place of disable device. After all, that was the initial point of all three scenarios. Someone using dungeoneering to get past a locked and trapped door. Perhaps, the failure is simply that I don't understand how you use the dungeoneering skill or what you are hoping to get from such a roll. Can you elaborate on what you think a "correct" DM response would be?

[Peelee]

DM: "It is a massive, solid metal door, deeply embedded in the stone around it. It appears to be ancient, as the stone itself has shifted in around it. Still there is a mechanism to open the door by twisting a knob, but it appears corroded and stuck, unused for years. You suspect it is locked and trapped."

Aside from the last sentence, there's already a skill that gives this description withiut a roll. It's Passive Perception.

Again, I'm very happy that you found people who apparently enjoy this style of DMing.

[Wintermoot]

Aside from the last sentence, there's already a skill that gives this description withiut a roll. It's Passive Perception.

Oh I agree. I'm just at a loss to think what a dungeoneering roll SHOULD provide if, as Dion says, it shouldn't include information about the lock or trap.
I'd ask what YOU would give the person asking for a dungeoneering roll about the vault door in question.

Again, I'm very happy that you found people who apparently enjoy this style of DMing.

I'm trying not to take this personally, so as what I intend to be and hope will be taken as a helpful critique to you as a poster and a moderator, given your strong opinion about context and language, there's really no way for me to interpret the context of this line other than as a baiting insult and a veiled flame. Something you might want to consider given your position and power on this forum.

[Dion]

Oh I agree. I'm just at a loss to think what a dungeoneering roll SHOULD provide if, as Dion says, it shouldn't include information about the lock or trap.

[checks notes] I don’t think I said that?

I admit that I’m not huge fan of puzzle traps in table games. But if you are going to have puzzle traps, why let players defeat them with skill rolls?

Player 1: I twist the knob to the *right* this time, while pulling the third lever

DM: ha ha ha! No, you haven’t solved the puzzle trap yet! You take 3 more points of sanity damage!

DM [checks clock] And now we’ve wasted four hours of playtime and you don’t get to fight anything this session. No experience or treasure either!

Player 2: oh no! Again! That’s the third session in a row.

[Wintermoot]

[checks notes] I don’t think I said that?

I admit that I’m not huge fan of puzzle traps in table games. But if you are going to have puzzle traps, why let players defeat them with skill rolls?

Player 1:what if my character tried to twist the knob to the it to the *right*, while pulling the third lever?

DM: ha ha ha! No, you haven’t solved the puzzle yet! You take 3 points of sanity damage!

DM [checks clock] And now we’ve wasted four hours of playtime and you don’t get to fight anything this session. No experience or treasure either!

Player 2: oh no! Again! That’s the third session in a row.

Okay, so what I take out of that is you have no idea what you, as DM, would say if a player asked to use a dungeoneering roll on a vault door in a dungeon. You just know that I'm doing it wrong. Got it.

[Dion]

Okay, so what I take out of that is you have no idea what you, as DM, would say if a player asked to use a dungeoneering roll on a vault door in a dungeon. You just know that I'm doing it wrong. Got it.

Why not tell them it looks dangerous, and it’s very likely the original owner put some sort of puzzle trap on it. Maybe give some hints to what the door is probably guarding, based on the size and tooling makes, if they roll high enough.

Then if they decide to look at the hinges, or the masonry around the door, or the lock, or the handle, or the frame,, or potential ways to bypass the door entirely, or whatever crazy things they come up with, you can drop more clues.

That all seems reasonable.

But if everyone likes puzzle traps, telling them how to solve the puzzle seems odd.

[Wintermoot]

Why not tell them it looks dangerous, and it’s very likely the original owner put some sort of puzzle trap on it.

That seems reasonable.

According to Peelee, that should be covered by passive perception. (I happen to agree with that)

[Dion]

According to Peelee, that should be covered by passive perception.

Sure. That’s fine. That works too. Whatever works for you.

I’m just saying that if you really like puzzle traps, and everyone wants to play a game of puzzle trap, why give them the answer ona die roll?

[Psyren]

Well this certainly took a turn.

Player1: "Hmmm. I have high Int and Wis and lots of ranks in Dungeoneering. Can I use that to try and figure out something about this door?"

DM: "To twist the door would require giant strength, or the equivalent. It appears to be made of reinforced steel, with no hinges visible."

^ For the record / in case it matters, this is how we'd handle it.

Also, if twisting the door was a possible solution but the player wasn't strong enough, we'd give a warning before they hurt themselves. "As you strain against the door, you notice it doesn't appear to be budging in the slightest even with your allies' help, but you can feel a growing soreness and pain in your muscles. You suspect that you won't be able to keep that up without some injury. Keep going?"

[Peelee]

Oh I agree. I'm just at a loss to think what a dungeoneering roll SHOULD provide if, as Dion says, it shouldn't include information about the lock or trap.
I'd ask what YOU would give the person asking for a dungeoneering roll about the vault door in question.




I'm trying not to take this personally, so as what I intend to be and hope will be taken as a helpful critique to you as a poster and a moderator, given your strong opinion about context and language, there's really no way for me to interpret the context of this line other than as a baiting insult and a veiled flame. Something you might want to consider given your position and power on this forum.

Bunsen_h and Psyren pretty much nail it for me. Both excellent answers I would love to have.

Well this certainly took a turn.

Aye, I didn't expect my joke to be taken this far.

[Wintermoot]

Well this certainly took a turn.





^ For the record / in case it matters, this is how we'd handle it.

Also, if twisting the door was a possible solution but the player wasn't strong enough, we'd give a warning before they hurt themselves. "As you strain against the door, you notice it doesn't appear to be budging in the slightest even with your allies' help, but you can feel a growing soreness and pain in your muscles. You suspect that you won't be able to keep that up without some injury. Keep going?"

So... wait... is the door trapped or just stuck?

I guess I've been interpreting the damage/stat damage as coming from a trap, not just from trying to open a stuck door?

But reading back through I think I just inserted the trap myself. It kind of looks like the earlier scenarios were maybe just talking about a stuck door?

Man, I don't know. I'm lost now.

I agree with Psyren though, if its just a stuck door and not a trap then you have to give some sort of staged warning like this before you hand out arbitrary damage.

Bunsen_h and Psyren pretty much nail it for me. Both excellent answers I would love to have.

Ok.

So how is

"To twist the door would require giant strength, or the equivalent. It appears to be made of reinforced steel, with no hinges visible."

a VIABLE response to a dungeoneering check that you would be happy with but

"It is a massive, solid metal door, deeply embedded in the stone around it. It appears to be ancient, as the stone itself has shifted in around it. Still there is a mechanism to open the door by twisting a knob, but it appears corroded and stuck, unused for years. You suspect it is locked and trapped."

not a VIABLE response because it should just be passive perception?

Serious question. I really don't understand why you are okay with what Bunsen_H said but would object to what I suggested? Other than some kind of bias.

Is it the suggestion in the first that you COULD use strength to open it (which would trigger the trap, so I would think, given your objections from earlier, you wouldn't appreciate that and would call it an unfair tactic)

I seriously cannot understand your objection beyond "anything coming form Wintermoot is wrong" and I just don't want to believe that's what is happening. I truly would like you to explain your thoughts.

[Dion]

As an aside, I love the Dungeon Kruger effect, and I believe the player should be allowed to roll the die and warp reality on a success.

Player: I twist the handle, because my character is really smart and I believe that’s what a really smart person would do.

DM: roll a dungeon Kruger check

Player: 25?

DM: you warp reality with your confidence. The door opens. You see the same black cat twice.

You can award one “dungeon Kruger die” to each player at the beginning of a campaign, and hand out more as they do really cool stuff.

[bunsen_h]

Bunsen_h and Psyren pretty much nail it for me. Both excellent answers I would love to have.

For the sake of clarity: I was intending to play off the distinction between "twisting the door" and "twisting the door handle". "Sure, go ahead, try to twist the reinforced vault door. Knock yourself out."

[Peelee]

For the sake of clarity, I was intending to play off the distinction between "twisting the door" and "twisting the door handle". Sure, go ahead, try to twist the reinforced vault door. Knock yourself out.

Which is why I appreciated it, given that the entire original exchange was completely facetious to start with.

[KorvinStarmast]

"Sure, go ahead, try to twist the reinforced vault door. Knock yourself out."

Break a wrist leg
(As an aside: is this table using the lingering injury chart? )
(As another aside: The character's love life will be impaired for a few days it would seem ...)

[bunsen_h]

Which is why I appreciated it, given that the entire original exchange was completely facetious to start with.

Player: "Grog will twist door!"
DM: "Uh, okay, what's your strength?"
Player: "This --" [displays ten fingers] "-- and this --" [repeats] "-- and this many!" [shows three fingers]
DM: "Okay, roll."
Player: "Grog got this -- and this -- and this -- and this -- and this -- and this -- and this."
DM: "... Okay, you wrenched the door off. You also triggered a trap..."

[Fyraltari]

Player: "Grog will twist door!"

DM: when I said I was tired of kick-in-the-door style of play, this is not what I meant.

[danielxcutter]

DM: when I said I was tired of kick-in-the-door style of play, this is not what I meant.

Wait what is it then?