You Can, But You Really Can't

[Vahnavoi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rynjin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GloatingSwine]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rynjin]

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

[GloatingSwine]

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

Spider-Man has sticking to things powers.

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

[Catullus64]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ionathus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jason]

Given that the OP had been trying improvised stuff all night and kept having to be dissuaded, I can sympathize with the DM feeling e.g. 'will you just use the rules and stop trying stuff?'. And actually just saying that, while if I felt that way it's what I'd do, is kinda fraught in a way I can understand wanting to avoid.

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

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

[Psyren]

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

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

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

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

[GloatingSwine]

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

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


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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Are you sure?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, it's not the worst misstep.

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

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

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

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

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

[Keltest]

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


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

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

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

[Beelzebub1111]

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

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

[Dr.Samurai]

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

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

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

[GloatingSwine]

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

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

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

[Keltest]

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

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

[NichG]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[kyoryu]

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

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

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

Yeah, this. 100%.

[Dr.Samurai]

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

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

[GloatingSwine]

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

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

[Dr.Samurai]

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

Love it!

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

But I don't find the DM's approach in this example unreasonable enough to justify a rant or even really a complaint.

Concur, and, the DM can determine that the Dragon has advantage on the STR check, that is right in Chapter 1 and in Chapter 7 of the PHB. And then see how it plays out.

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

Also true. But if they insist, let them experience the consequences of their stubbornness. That fall from 200' is one such experience for the character.

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

Concur. Give 'em enough rope.

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

Also true.

[NichG]

Yeah, it's not the worst misstep.

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

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

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

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

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

[Jason]

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

That's also why the "everybody in the party make a stealth roll," approach doesn't work for me. That's usually just another way of saying "someone spots you." Or "everybody make a spot roll," which usually just means "someone in the party spots this."

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

Definitely a better approach.

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

[GloatingSwine]

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

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



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

[Easy e]

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

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

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

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

[GloatingSwine]

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

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

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

[ciopo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

[Dr.Samurai]

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