You Can, But You Really Can't

[Catullus64]

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?

Well, this happened Saturday, and I haven't seen them since. I knew better than to try to give feedback at the end of session because I was still annoyed and would have said something I regretted. This was my first time with this person as my GM, though I've had them as a player before, and the simple fact is I plan not to play in his games anymore. Yes, everyone has a learning curve, but as we are not personal friends and this was a stand-alone adventure, I feel no obligation to suffer through unfun games on the dubious supposition that he will improve to my taste.

One comment he did make after the fact, which has just returned to me, was that if the rope had held, I would have been dragged off into the sky and likely pancaked. From this I get the sense that maybe he felt like he needed to protect me from what he viewed as a bad decision. If I planned to play in more of his games, I would say that I understood and accepted that risk, and that I want to be allowed to fail, even (perhaps especially) when character death is on the line. His job as the GM is not to protect me from myself.

[Telok]

Not true. The knock out blow is hard coded in the Combat rules, chapter 9....

...I've been playing this edition for about 10 years.

Chapter 9 in the second D&D DMG on my shelf goes from pages 51 to 79. You'll have to be more specific. The first D&D DMG on my shelf doesn't have numbered chapters.

I've been playing over 30 years, and started 5e when it first came out over 10 years ago. I no longer have ****s to give for failing to read my posts. I don't run 5e, I'll play it if nothing else is available. Someone asked why I said something and I explained my experience. You may disagree with my conclusions, but you may not accuse me of lying about my experiences.

[HalfTangible]

"As you go to say no, you say 'yes' instead." -XP to Level 3

[NichG]

Spotlight sharing? I feel that's an odd take, but OK.

First, I feel that "table discussions" are a place where everyone can contribute. In particular, at some tables, just all the players getting behind an idea is all it takes for a GM to "rule of cool" allow it. Not my personal style, mind you, just the most obvious "everyone is participating is a requirement for 'everyone wants this' style of rulings" example to show that everyone can participate in such things.

Second, "I want to do cool thing" seems like a really good place for a player to take their share of the spotlight. So, if we're ever gonna focus on a player, I'd prefer that over most of the standard alternatives ("you got the killing blow!", "the Rogue goes off and scouts for hours" / Shadowrun (X-1)/X of the time thumb-twiddling, "talky bits" where only 1 player interacts (or, worse, where the GM only allows 1 player to interact), etc), both for value and duration of the spotlight.

It's not a given that having OOC discussions about the game rather than playing the game is what everyone at the table is there to do with their limited time. It's better GMing to respect everyone's time in that sense, and not just let one player yank the table out of the game and into that kind of discussion just because they unilaterally choose to do so. You might enjoy it, but not everyone necessarily will, and a good GM is going to be sensitive to that.

It's not that table discussion should always be forbidden or something like that, but in the realm of 'good GM-ing' rather than 'average GM-ing', maintaining momentum, balancing spotlight, etc are ways that a good GM can create a better experience than a GM who simply doesn't do anything wrong. That means that sometimes table discussion happens - when its clear that a plurality of players want it, or when that quantity of table discussion will efficiently clear up something that would otherwise be a recurring pain point. But when its just some player who would rather be talking about D&D than playing it when everyone else is waiting for their turn, I'd say its pretty mediocre GM-ing to always take that bait. 'We can talk about it after game' is the easy move in that case. The hard move is somehow addressing the underlying reason why you have a player that would rather talk about your game than play in it. The very hard move would be something something so that the player actually becomes more considerate of the other players and when they disagree or feel like an argument but others are lukewarm about it, they learn to themselves say 'you know what, I disagree but lets just play on, maybe we can talk about it later' when it isn't really important.

Actually this makes me think something like a 'guide to unilateral social strategies and their counters' would be useful reading for advanced GMing. Those are some of the trickiest situations to recognize that you're in, and to deal with without sacrificing functionality in other ways. I don't know if I have the exact words to say this correctly, but there's something like a general pattern where game (or any social activity) runs better when you make yourself vulnerable in certain ways - ideas like 'giving the benefit of the doubt', or always being willing to communicate, always taking things in good faith, agreeing to try to preserve each-others' fun above seeking your own, etc. Even without malice, even without actually realizing they're doing it, I think its easy for people to sort of... sometimes leverage asymmetries in those offers when its convenient to them. The really highly skilled stuff is being able to basically prevent that from becoming a problem while at the same time not sacrificing the advantages of mutual trust and table norms and promises like making sure everyone's on the same page before moving forward.

Maybe it's me being loose with my words and concepts. To me, communication, persuasion, teaching? They're all "talky bits"; so long as we all end up happily on the same page, I care little which route we take. Note that the fallback plans when we cannot get to that shared space though understanding are "everyone pulls out their (verbal) clue-by-fours and beats the ignoramus with them until they admit they're an ignoramus and submit", or the even worse, "let's just do something stupid for now and discuss it later" (more on that one below).

And, because I think it fits better here, even if it ties into things below, I'll go ahead and add that... when evaluating a new action, I *start* with physics/realism. And that's important.

See, one could start with, say, game balance, and then attempt to back-port that into completely random disassociated rules, but IME that's just dumb. It never works out in a way that satisfies, well, most anyone I play with, and certainly not me.

Instead, I start with "what are you attempting", "how should this work", and try to translate that into game rules.

That has the result of everything having what I'll call a consistent, memorable, "I can see how you got here" feel to it, like Knowledge: Nature letting you choose an easier to climb tree reducing the DC of the Climb check being a ruling where you can follow the thought process, in a way "number of spellbooks gives a synergy bonus to climb checks" (for balance reasons, because spellbooks are heavy) doesn't.

So "convince me" not only is good on its own merits, but can also be, "convince me that some other consideration (game balance, spotlight sharing, character concept ("really, you're a Dragon Grappler?"), whatever) should be taking priority over my presumed focus of realism/consistency/verisimilitude".

Or, to put it in perhaps the most approachable way, explaining to me why you think something should work will (hopefully) reveal your thought process, and (hopefully) reveal the disconnect, be it a material or stylistic one.

Because "I grapple hook the dragon to keep it from moving" produces a "the ****?" response, which, as I've mentioned in other threads, is a sign of a disconnect that needs to be addressed.

There's a lot here and I don't want to slice up your post... So rather than make a bunch of labyrinthine sentence by sentence responses, I think I'll just say that its a really good skill to be able to separate 'game I would personally like to play in/run' from 'is the GM accomplishing what they set out to achieve with their group?'. Game balance over all is a valid style and a valid goal, even if its not a game I would personally want to play in that doesn't make it a bad game. Also players can have this mental hurdle as well...

A style of prioritizing realism is also a valid style, but its not the only style. A realism GM isn't 'just a better GM' than a cinematic GM or a challenge GM. They might be 'just a better GM for you', but whats good advice for someone who has you as a player might be terrible advice for their table, their players, and their shared goals. Just something to keep in mind...

Yeah, you lost me on this one. I hate alignment, so it'd be a good pick for trying to write a convincing argument for me, except I just don't see the relevance in this case. I'm guessing it was intended to parallel a position you want me to reevaluate, but I'm guessing you're arguing against a position I don't actually hold, and that's why it's just not sticking the landing?

No, its not about evaluating a position, its a classic example of really fraught and disruptive and unfortunately quite common table debates that emerge from a ruling. The point I want you to take away here is that when its 'something in the fantasy world happens to the imaginary character' then there's a level of insulation that permits us to consider things and play things that wouldn't be acceptable IRL. It's fine for the GM to play an orc killing a kid, because 'its the orc killing the kid, not the GM killing the kid'. It's fine for the GM to play a cleric of an ostensibly LG deity who calls for the punishment of someone who killed a slaver, because that just means that the LG deity is a jerk in this setting.

Once you lift that to table debate though, you lose the layer of insulation. Now its not the character who is wrong, its the player who is wrong. Now its not the character who has a warped morality, it's the player who is arguing OOC to justify why their character's action was okay. Now its not the character who is an 8 Int Fighter and who naturally might not understand physics well enough to figure out what happens when they leash themselves to a dragon, its the player who is being dumb.

Like, you talk about ignoramuses a lot in your post which I take to be hyperbolic jests about made-up silly players. But if you said that about an actual player at your table for something they thought should work which you disagreed with, that's the start of a very bad pattern of disrespect. And if you or another player actually said it at the table, whoo... At best you've got someone who might be hurt a bit but will just shrug it off, at worst now you've got someone who feels belittled and needs to get some power back to equalize the situation and chooses to escalate.

Again, this isn't to say 'all OOC conversation is too dangerous to ever have, shut it down!'. But like, its very useful to recognize that part of the GM's role is as referee - to make a dispassionate call and move on, right or wrong, so that the game can continue. That provides a lot of emotional insulation that is very helpful, especially when a player is really fixed on an idea that they think is cool but which as GM you rule wouldn't work. Its very useful to be able to move past that without having to say 'no, your idea wasn't cool, it was dumb, and I'm going to force you to capitulate and agree with me that it was dumb'. Similarly, reverse player and GM here, the same kind of thing is true - the GM isn't required to have physics major levels of knowledge about classical mechanics to GM a game, and a player making them feel like they *personally* have the onus to justify their ruling to the satisfaction of the player before they can get on with their job is being a bit toxic.

It's a good GM skill to recognize when one is being baited into a fight and have a bunch of strategies to bypass that.

So I've finally figured out why I have such a visceral HATE reaction to that concept: because when people implement it IRL, it basically translates to, "I'm a narcissistic moron who has a stupid idea that nobody would ever accept if they actually thought about it, and I either don't care or actively want all the detrimental effects to (your) possessions, status, and/or health that following this stupid plan blindly will result in".

So, going forward, my response to anyone suggesting such things in game is, "Oh, if it doesn't matter to you if we do it correctly or not because it can just be retconned later, then let's go with my way until we discuss it after the game, OK?" That preserves your momentum, and my sanity and engagement. Perfect plan?

Well if a player were to tell me that, then I say 'okay sure, I'll give you my campaign notes, here's the GM chair, I'll roll up a character'. Which hey, maybe you'd take me up on and I'd actually get to play a game, in which case fine - bit weird, but fine.

But if you're staying a player, its not your job to run the world any more than its my job to tell you what your character does. My job is to make sure you understand how I will run the world in response to your actions, inasmuch as your character should know how their own stuff works and how the world they live in works. If I do that, even if you would run it differently, there's not going to be any 'detrimental effects ... that following this plan blindly will result in' because I'm telling you the detrimental effects and you can do something else instead.

Did you just... casually suggest the thing I just came up with after struggling with for years (or decades)? Or am I just reading it that way because I just came up with it? Or did you just give the standard, "I don't care if it's stupid, we can retcon it later" response?

I mean, minus the 'retcon it later'. The player gets a chance to speak their mind, but maybe all they receive in return is an explanation of my position and a 'agree to disagree'. If its a build-affecting thing because of a disagreement of how a mechanic works or something, I will offer a free rebuild. If there's something I legitimately feel I screwed up or a consequence I missed, I'll run things differently moving forward. But the point of 'we're doing it this way and moving on' is to do it and move on, not leave it unresolved, so retconning the actual event is almost never going to be on the table.

No more unfair than "a combat" - they can all participate if they want to. And they should want to - it's the health of the game and the happiness of the players that are the Stakes.

Um, no? The two things have nothing to do with each-other, nor does an abstract unrelated rules debate that isn't even about something the character has or will actually do actually bear on the health of the game or the happiness of the players.

Debating rulings is not playing the game. It's not an inherently 'ask the player to leave' worthy thing when I GM, but like... as a player, this is very annoying player behavior and if it was a weekly thing and the GM got drawn into it like clockwork, I might leave the game myself rather than keep playing at a table with someone who constantly did this for things that ultimately wouldn't matter.

You're confusing me more and more in this thread.

So, if only 1 player connects with a particular subsystem, that's great! That makes it clear that that subsystem has built-in nich-protection for that player. Whether that subsystem is "runes", "combat", "talk to the nobility", "talk to <this PC>'s family", "interact with <that PC's love interest>", "investigation", "puzzles", "anything to do with religion", or what have you. That makes it really easy to balance the spotlight and ensure everyone gets a chance to shine.

What you're calling a problem I think of as part of the solution.

The only time that's real is real time. It's not good balance if player A gets to solve 1 problem and B gets to solve 1 problem and C gets to solve 1 problem if the game involved player A talking with me for 3 hours about solving their problem, B spent 5 minutes talking with me to solve theirs, and C spent 30 seconds. That means that players B and C spent most of the time sitting there watching me talk with A. Unless B and C really just want to watch (or, say, play games on their phones and hang out with friends but not actually play), that's bad. It's also an easy trap to fall into if, say, player A is the most passionately interested in the game while B and C are half checked-out even when they have stuff to do. Lean into that and A will think you're the best GM ever, and tell you that, and make you feel like the best GM ever. While B and C will be thinking like 'meh, I would have rather just sat at home'.

More and more I'm an anti-fan, to borrow Kyoryu's term, of niche protection in games. Better if everyone can in principle do everything and anything, but the game is such that there are personal decisions and goals and not just group decisions and goals. You can gain the power to duplicate items and so can the other three players, perhaps through different paths to power, but you choose to burn your own bodymass to do it (and therefore must be constantly looking for restaurants to bulk up at) while player B has to fuel it with gold from their merchant empire while player C is making contracts with the fae to do really weird stuff like swap two kids' shoes.

And the point of bringing up Runes was, what if the Runes were an inconsistent jumble, where the GM clearly didn't care about making their rules make any sense. Wouldn't that have detracted from the specific type of enjoyment you got out of Exploring that subsystem? It was simply a call to "even though there are other valid considerations, do your own experiences not give voice to the importance of consistency and thought-through rules?".

Well the GM makes the system as they do, offers it to me, and I can decide whether or not to engage with that. If it turns out to be an inconsistent jumble, oh well. If it turns out to be extremely consistent, great. If I need to explain my thoughts in detail to the GM to get it to work, I do that outside of game so I'm not taking up everyone's time (which in practice is what we did, because this was the GM I was driving 6 hours to play with, so I and another player who was local to them would meet up, hash out designs, and talk through them with the GM over dinner or breakfast before game rather than during game).

But if in order for the rune system to be consistent we had to periodically stop game and have hours long physics debates? Then what would have been healthier for the game would be to let the rune system be inconsistent, and maybe I'm a bit less excited about it - but 5 other people aren't bored out of their wits during their precious gaming time, which would be a net win. Fortunately, that wasn't necessary, because the GM was good enough that they could pull it off, and we could read each-others minds and both go with the flow well enough to not need to disrupt game to have these things.

If the GM couldn't do that? Well, I'm all for people taking risks to improve, so I guess they maybe should still try. But the game might just end up being crappy for it, if their best answer to how to make it work requires long periods of thumb-twiddling for most of the players. I guess what they 'should' do is keep trying different methods to be aware when that's happening and avoid it while still having it work.

On a different note, "how and how well players engage in various minigames" (not just "convince me", but "play 20 questions with the GM", learn about an NPC rather than just "roll diplomacy", and so many others) has, I admit, begun to become a concern, and a balance concern. Still, player differentiation via "just presses game buttons" vs "thinks outside the box" is a feature, not a bug, it's the game operating as designed IMO. So I agree in the general case that it's something to watch for, but the specific case is IMO one the GM should generally already have balanced for before the game starts.

I mean, I'm definitely usually on the side of player skill over character skill, but I want that to be player skill with respect to the game world, not player skill with respect to manipulating me or other players IRL. Realizing that this NPC is being portrayed as shy and can therefore be steamrolled IC, great. Playing a game of chess IRL with the GM to emulate playing chess with Death for your life after the rules say you'd otherwise die, why not - its explicitly invited there, neat flourish. But, say, realizing that the GM is shy and using that to steamroll them and get them to make rulings in your favor, not great unless the GM and players were really clear that they consented to that kind of thing.

[Vahnavoi]

@NichG: regarging social strategies, what you describe sounds to me it exist at an intersection game theory, specifically extended (iterated) versus isolated equilibrium strategies, and the psychological concept of delayed gratification.

Your advocation for mutual trust etc. "vulnerable" social strategies is similar to building up the case for co-operation being an equilibrium strategy instead of defection in extended versions of games analogous to Prisoner's dilemma (etc.). So when we see a player (prematurely) defecting in such a game, we have to ask if the player is correctly processing the game as extended rather than isolated case.

This links to psychology of delayed gratification, since we have to consider the possibility that the benefits of defection (here, socially unwanted behaviour) are tangible, but the benefits of co-operation are not. That is, eating two candies at once has tangibly different feel from eating one candy now and another later - delayed rewards do not accumulate to match the same experience. In the same way, benefits of defection are obvious and capable of being experienced, while the benefits of co-operation are not and can not.

I'll continue the thought later.

[Ionathus]

Out of curiosity, why is it always the DMs fault? Can player's be at fault? What is an example of a player being at fault?

It's the DM's fault in this case because the DM is in charge of setting DCs and ruling what is or isn't possible. If hitting the dragon with a grappling hook wasn't possible from the start, that's fine, but it's the DM's job to communicate that. This DM sent the player on a wild goose chase, knowing that their goals were impossible, instead of stating that outright so the player could do something productive with their turns instead.

It's a matter of time and place, cool things during narrative time, like I don't know, put explosives in the elevator such that when it's called it blows up? cool beans! do it again! It's cool moment where planning and thinking results in a good time.

Ignoring the rules within the space where they are most-defined? (ie: combat) You unbound my action from the framework that exists, why are we pretending to play (whatever system), if the desired outcome is freeform cooperative worldbuilding?

I'm fairly certain there's some version of this sentence in every edition of D&D:

Actions in Combat
When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise. Many monsters have action options of their own in their stat blocks.

When you describe an action not detailed elsewhere in the rules, the DM tells you whether that action is possible and what kind of roll you need to make, if any, to determine success or failure.

Improvisation is codified in the rules.

Also, you'll notice that my original examples were all about how a DM can use the existing rules and framework to rule fairly on improvised actions. e.g. a PC wants to accomplish something that's part of a Battle Master maneuver? Using that maneuver as a baseline template gives me a reference point for damage, effect, save DC, and duration. I can buff or nerf the RAW ability based on mitigating circumstances (examples: "Would the PC be proficient at this?" "Does the target have any disadvantages?" "Is this the first time the PC has tried this action?" "Given how big this creature is, what would a falling bookcase do to it?")

[KorvinStarmast]

Additionally, an opposed check involves two dice. Rolling a 20 on one isn't a guarantee that that side will win if the other side has a better modifier. This is also far from the only reason why a natural 20 isn't an automatic success, in 5e or any other edition.

Good point.

Chapter 9 in the second D&D DMG on my shelf goes from pages 51 to 79. You'll have to be more specific. The first D&D DMG on my shelf doesn't have numbered chapters.

My point to you was that you are making an overly broad assertion that simply isn't true for the current edition. Had you bothered to be specific (I am very familiar with past editions, thanks) rather than painting with a broad brush, I'd not have responded.
I find your penchant for D&D bashing to detract from threads.
Why not accentuate the positive?

I've been playing over 30 years

And I started in 1975. So what?
I've seen D&D played a variety of ways and style over multiple editions, to include "kill them all/total clear" styles. That is one style of many. Some of my favorite D&D sessions ever were "can you survive to level 4 or 5 and earn the right to join the thieves guild" (back when GP = XP) in the City State of the Invincible Overlord. In groups of two or three we did our best to make it from 0 to a level where the thieves guild would accept us, and no few of us died. The emphasis was absolutely NOT on killing, though we had a few combats. (and as fragile as thieves were then, we lost a few here and there).

Not sure how you glean from my reply to you that I think that you are lying about your experience (I see no reason to do that) but for you to extrapolate as a fact something that is anecdotal (your experience) is incorrect.

Have I misunderstood you? Do you still play D&D 5e? From previous posts, I was under the impression that you had stopped since you have found other games more appealing.

[NichG]

@NichG: regarging social strategies, what you describe sounds to me it exist at an intersection game theory, specifically extended (iterated) versus isolated equilibrium strategies, and the psychological concept of delayed gratification.

Your advocation for mutual trust etc. "vulnerable" social strategies is similar to building up the case for co-operation being an equilibrium strategy instead of defection in extended versions of games analogous to Prisoner's dilemma (etc.). So when we see a player (prematurely) defecting in such a game, we have to ask if the player is correctly processing the game as extended rather than isolated case.

This links to psychology of delayed gratification, since we have to consider the possibility that the benefits of defection (here, socially unwanted behaviour) are tangible, but the benefits of co-operation are not. That is, eating two candies at once has tangibly different feel from eating one candy now and another later - delayed rewards do not accumulate to match the same experience. In the same way, benefits of defection are obvious and capable of being experienced, while the benefits of co-operation are not and can not.

I'll continue the thought later.

There's an additional wrinkle in that actually detecting defection is not guaranteed here. E.g. think something like a cross between prisoners dilemma and a coordination game with asymmetrically costly communication. The agent who can inflict the cost has privileged information about whether the cost is paying for them to increase their score alone or whether the cost increases the group's score, and after the fact a single instance does not provide enough evidence for other agents to conclude one way or another conclusively.

So its more tragedy of the commons than Prisoner's Dilemma. Like, group game where everyone has a (hidden) need for a communal resource each round; if anyone doesn't take enough to meet their need, everyone takes a penalty. However, everyone gets bonus points themselves for taking more, and also the group as a whole or some designated referee for the round has the additional power to limit how much each person is allowed to take. The needs are random each round and the distribution is not the same for each player even though they are drawn from the same distribution of distributions. So in that case, how do you tell that your neighbor is taking more than they strictly need, and what do you do about it?

[Vahnavoi]

Ah, yes. I agree common land and tragedy of the commons are morr straightforward examples of extended social co-operation games. Good catch. I am less sure if your specific formulation, specifically the part about randomness, helps in approaching any solution, however. I still think the solution is most likely to be found in psychology of those who take too much or too little, which might not be random and might be stable on a metagame level.

Of course, if randomness here is supposed to stand for a referee having limited knowledge of their players, then I understand its inclusion, since it isn't given a referee has a clue of their players' psychology when they enter a situation.

[NichG]

Ah, yes. I agree common land and tragedy of the commons are morr straightforward examples of extended social co-operation games. Good catch. I am less sure if your specific formulation, specifically the part about randomness, helps in approaching any solution, however. I still think the solution is most likely to be found in psychology of those who take too much or too little, which might not be random and might be stable on a metagame level.

Yeah, in reality the psychology is going to be more important than the abstracted game theory, because you and your players don't exist in the isolated universe of just your table interaction - every interaction with other people throughout everyone's life and in each context is going to create much stronger biases that people bring in with them, and often the 'exploits' are from people who notice more quickly than others that the context is different and adapt narrow behaviors for this specific context that wouldn't work in life in general...

Of course, if randomness here is supposed to stand for a referee having limited knowledge of their players, then I understand its inclusion, since it isn't given a referee has a clue of their players' psychology when they enter a situation.

Yeah, its because the referee has limited knowledge even after the fact, which is different than in the usual Prisoner's Dilemma case where you know you were betrayed. If a player says 'I don't understand this, I want to talk it out in detail' then you don't know if they actually don't understand it, or if they think by talking it out in detail they can influence you to rule differently, or even if they're pursuing some totally different goal like 'I'm bored with the actual game, so I'm going to entertain myself by getting into a one-on-one debate with the GM', etc. If as the GM you assume malfeasance, then your game as a whole suffers because that communication channel is a communal resource essential to the function of the game. But also if you assume that no malfeasance ever could occur then you're vulnerable to the exploit, and a player who takes advantage of that can make the game as a whole suffer for everyone else. And there's not usually going to be some smoking gun which is like 'aha, I caught you, you really did understand that', it's always going to be different shades of murky. You might think a player is messing around with you, but because everyone's brain is different they might just really not be getting something that is easy for you to get, and if you 'call them on it' then its just going to hurt feelings all around.

[kyoryu]

Any tips for learning this skill, or for applying it to the issue at hand?

Yup.

Don't allow yourself the explanation of "they did it because they're dumb".

So, when someone does something that seems dumb, instead of going "they must be dumb!", ask yourself "huh, I wonder what they do or don't know that would make them think that's a smart idea? What would it take for me to think that was a good idea?" And if you can't think of anything, ask. But just disallowing "they're dumb" as an explanation goes a long way. They may also be working off of different principles.

There may be cases where that's actually true, but they're more rare than you think.

(The same goes for "they're evil".)

Ah, that was the trick: everyone in beekeeper circles does do it, because it's really effective with bees. Even if it's not effective as a general tactic against arbitrary monsters, it should be in this specific case. (carrying capacity and not murderhoboing all your foes I'm assuming are not facets you'd call out with a "guys, guys, no, that loophole breaks my game" response )

If it was as easy as you described, why hasn't every local lord set up that situation to get endless supplies of cash?

And again and again with the having the right mindest. You make it look easy.

Thanks. It's really as simple as "assume people are reasonable". Even when I disagree with people, I think they're reasonable. Sometimes they have unreasonable goals, but they're generally reasonable people.

And, to poke the thread topic directly, I'm not generally a fan of what the OP described as "you can, but you can't". I'd like to think that, had I been GM, I would have asked the OP to explain their reasoning, found the disconnect, and had a discussion to get the OP on the same page wrt modules, rails, and the style of game I was running (where outside the box actions need to be "beekeepers use smoke to make bees docile" level of supported exceptions in order to outperform standard inside the box actions, and standard inside the box nets are weak) - and that maybe that would have happened much earlier in the night than the dragon grappling incident.

Yup. Getting aligned on the mental map, and being clear about the game you're running. All good things.

[Ionathus]

Don't allow yourself the explanation of "they did it because they're dumb".

So, when someone does something that seems dumb, instead of going "they must be dumb!", ask yourself "huh, I wonder what they do or don't know that would make them think that's a smart idea? What would it take for me to think that was a good idea?" And if you can't think of anything, ask. But just disallowing "they're dumb" as an explanation goes a long way. They may also be working off of different principles.

There may be cases where that's actually true, but they're more rare than you think.

(The same goes for "they're evil".)

So we've got the simplified version, called Hanlon's Razor: "don't assume evil when incompetence makes just as much sense," which is part of your bigger point.

Now you've added nuance to that Razor, does your version deserve a new, less simplified name? Kyoryu's 5-Bladed Ultra-Glide, perhaps?

Yup. Getting aligned on the mental map, and being clear about the game you're running. All good things.

Same. My best advice for most scenarios where DMs are uncertain is to ask the player. Which can be really hard! Players sometimes want to "reveal" their cool maneuver, and I don't want to step on that or take the wind out of their sails. But sometimes even if I *have* the players' trust that I won't sabotage their cool idea, they can still often be cagey about their intentions.

A DM friend of mine told me a story about being in a combat where a player kept being really weird asking about arbitrary distances, in a context that didn't really make any sense to him as DM -- he couldn't think of a reason the player would need that info, and kept trying to tease the player's "real" question out of him. The player, meanwhile, was waiting for the perfect opportunity to turn into a Giant Octopus and cause a shakeup in the battle, and didn't want to spoil that reveal.

My friend had to basically level with him and say "listen, I know you're building up to a cool thing and I don't want to step on it, but if you just tell me what you're trying to do or what details you need from me, I can probably make it happen for you this turn."

[Quertus]

@NichG - In what is perhaps a hilariously unintentional parody of (the root cause behind) this thread, we seem to be horrifically out of sync. I've already found and commented on a few of these places (like how you went with "the GM has already decided how this will go down", whereas I didn't, which led to me not understanding your train of thought / conclusions in some of your statements).

As for the rest, rather than get lost in labyrinthine back-and-forth replies, I think I'll focus on one topic at a time, and limit it to those I can ostensibly tie back into the thread topic / diagnosis.

The only time that's real is real time. It's not good balance if player A gets to solve 1 problem and B gets to solve 1 problem and C gets to solve 1 problem if the game involved player A talking with me for 3 hours about solving their problem, B spent 5 minutes talking with me to solve theirs, and C spent 30 seconds. That means that players B and C spent most of the time sitting there watching me talk with A. Unless B and C really just want to watch (or, say, play games on their phones and hang out with friends but not actually play), that's bad. It's also an easy trap to fall into if, say, player A is the most passionately interested in the game while B and C are half checked-out even when they have stuff to do. Lean into that and A will think you're the best GM ever, and tell you that, and make you feel like the best GM ever. While B and C will be thinking like 'meh, I would have rather just sat at home'.

More and more I'm an anti-fan, to borrow Kyoryu's term, of niche protection in games. Better if everyone can in principle do everything and anything, but the game is such that there are personal decisions and goals and not just group decisions and goals. You can gain the power to duplicate items and so can the other three players, perhaps through different paths to power, but you choose to burn your own bodymass to do it (and therefore must be constantly looking for restaurants to bulk up at) while player B has to fuel it with gold from their merchant empire while player C is making contracts with the fae to do really weird stuff like swap two kids' shoes.

So, we're not in disagreement, especially wrt Time. In fact, earlier in the same post, I expressed full agreement about all the bad forms of niche-protection (granted, I didn't explicitly call out unequal spotlight sharing time, I just explicitly called out long spotlight periods, and attempted to implicitly call out unequal time with the Rogue going off and scouting for 2 hours (which relies on session length and party size for that to land correctly)). For reference, you were replying to,

Spoiler: My stuff

Show

So, if only 1 player connects with a particular subsystem, that's great! That makes it clear that that subsystem has built-in nich-protection for that player. Whether that subsystem is "runes", "combat", "talk to the nobility", "talk to <this PC>'s family", "interact with <that PC's love interest>", "investigation", "puzzles", "anything to do with religion", or what have you. That makes it really easy to balance the spotlight and ensure everyone gets a chance to shine.

What you're calling a problem I think of as part of the solution.

Granted, that mostly only works if you develop a playstyle optimized to make it a solution, in a group with enough common interests to make those the focus of the campaign - or at least the bulk of the time spent at the table during the campaign, which are not the same things. Otherwise, you can get Shadowrun thumb-twiddling.

In the line you dropped, which I bolded for emphasis, I mentioned how having such niche-protection (Imma learn how to spell some day) was mostly only useful when the bulk of time in the game was spent on shared endeavors.

For example, suppose Bob's dice have just hated him today, everyone's gotten a chance to shine except Bob, and today's also the day he discovered that his pet project wasn't gonna work (Tungsten doesn't have the right magnetic properties, whatever).

If there's an element you know only Bob will respond to, you can incorporate that element in order to give Bob their time in the spotlight, their chance to do something cool individually today.

Of course, if you're like me, and aren't one to change the Fictional Reality just to make a Player happy, you can still potentially use this tool, even if it is perhaps suboptimal compared to the above: say, discussing a little of Bob's downtime, or the party's progress on the thing Bob clearly cares more about, at the end of the session, leaving elaborating on that and the rest of downtime plans to e-mail. Something you can't do if it's a common interest, and Tony is just as likely to monopolize time discussing it if he happens to... you get the idea, right?

It's not about lengthy periods of time, it's about giving each player that moment in the spotlight (emphasis on "moment"), *if* "time in the spotlight" is something you explicitly want in your games. That's the variety of niche-protection / shine relationship I was advocating as a potentially good thing.

(And a clever reader may be asking, "how does this relate to the current thread, exactly?". Well, 2 small ways: the idea of different gaming styles, and my own admission of the existence of things I recognize as being potentially good (adding things to the game to increase player enjoyment) that don't match my style and I won't do, that may well parallel the OP's GM who may well just not do certain things. The trick is, which things will they just not do, vs which things do they lack the skills to do, but would if they could? And divining the difference takes more tact and skill than just asking, "are you a clueless noob, or are you just a ****?".)

Yup.

Don't allow yourself the explanation of "they did it because they're dumb".

So, when someone does something that seems dumb, instead of going "they must be dumb!", ask yourself "huh, I wonder what they do or don't know that would make them think that's a smart idea? What would it take for me to think that was a good idea?" And if you can't think of anything, ask. But just disallowing "they're dumb" as an explanation goes a long way. They may also be working off of different principles.

So glad I asked. That's so much simpler than any tool I'd come up with. And a great mindset.

If it was as easy as you described, why hasn't every local lord set up that situation to get endless supplies of cash?

Endless over an infinite amount of time, something something overharvesting, requires a specific opportunity, not something you can outsource to untrained peasants, and not a good Risk/Reward ratio for most people, to name a few? Heck, I probably wouldn't seek out the scenario to engage it, or necessarily think to handle it that way, but it's the scenario the GM prepared, and even the general outcome they explicitly called for, so I'm gonna squeeze those lemon-shaped bugs for their golden lemonade.

[NichG]

@NichG - In what is perhaps a hilariously unintentional parody of (the root cause behind) this thread, we seem to be horrifically out of sync. I've already found and commented on a few of these places (like how you went with "the GM has already decided how this will go down", whereas I didn't, which led to me not understanding your train of thought / conclusions in some of your statements).

As for the rest, rather than get lost in labyrinthine back-and-forth replies, I think I'll focus on one topic at a time, and limit it to those I can ostensibly tie back into the thread topic / diagnosis.

So, we're not in disagreement, especially wrt Time. In fact, earlier in the same post, I expressed full agreement about all the bad forms of niche-protection (granted, I didn't explicitly call out unequal spotlight sharing time, I just explicitly called out long spotlight periods, and attempted to implicitly call out unequal time with the Rogue going off and scouting for 2 hours (which relies on session length and party size for that to land correctly)). For reference, you were replying to,

In the line you dropped, which I bolded for emphasis, I mentioned how having such niche-protection (Imma learn how to spell some day) was mostly only useful when the bulk of time in the game was spent on shared endeavors.

For example, suppose Bob's dice have just hated him today, everyone's gotten a chance to shine except Bob, and today's also the day he discovered that his pet project wasn't gonna work (Tungsten doesn't have the right magnetic properties, whatever).

If there's an element you know only Bob will respond to, you can incorporate that element in order to give Bob their time in the spotlight, their chance to do something cool individually today.

Of course, if you're like me, and aren't one to change the Fictional Reality just to make a Player happy, you can still potentially use this tool, even if it is perhaps suboptimal compared to the above: say, discussing a little of Bob's downtime, or the party's progress on the thing Bob clearly cares more about, at the end of the session, leaving elaborating on that and the rest of downtime plans to e-mail. Something you can't do if it's a common interest, and Tony is just as likely to monopolize time discussing it if he happens to... you get the idea, right?

It's not about lengthy periods of time, it's about giving each player that moment in the spotlight (emphasis on "moment"), *if* "time in the spotlight" is something you explicitly want in your games. That's the variety of niche-protection / shine relationship I was advocating as a potentially good thing.

(And a clever reader may be asking, "how does this relate to the current thread, exactly?". Well, 2 small ways: the idea of different gaming styles, and my own admission of the existence of things I recognize as being potentially good (adding things to the game to increase player enjoyment) that don't match my style and I won't do, that may well parallel the OP's GM who may well just not do certain things. The trick is, which things will they just not do, vs which things do they lack the skills to do, but would if they could? And divining the difference takes more tact and skill than just asking, "are you a clueless noob, or are you just a ****?".)

I think the 'niche protection because only one player interacts with it' + 'its of collective interest at the table' is kind of a weird juxtaposition. Like, I'm not sure how exactly that combo comes about unless you specifically go and try to make it happen, since if everyone is interested, why isn't *everyone* using the subsystem or heck even submitting designs for the one player to implement with their character's skills?

But also it seems like we've kind of gotten off the main track, if table debate turned into just a moment, emphasis on "moment", when the original examples - at least the ones I had in mind from my own experiences as player and GM - are more like a player holding up the game for ten minutes plus on a single ruling or realism critique...

[Vahnavoi]

@NichG: I suspect many of these weird juxtapositions exists because a lot of tabletop players, despite repeatedly making collectivist-sounding statements, are dirty dirty individualist at heart. Meaning, they can't actually find joy in group success or entertainment in another person being in the spotlight.

So, I find niche protection stems from that, when it is not just artefact of treating simultaneous actions sequantially. What I mean by that last part can be understood through music: in a band, every musician might be playing a different instrument, but it's the simultaneity of effort that creates the finished piece of music. Listening to every instrument separately im sequence isn't the same experience.

This relates to the earlier part about delayed gratification and two candies at once versus more candies over time. When a process forces breaking up simultaneous actions into a sequence, it changes what each participant is experiencing. The full experience cannot be recovered for any participant without doing some extra work to put the pieces back together. Since this payoff isn't obvious, it incentivizes participants to focus on the things that are: their own performance.

The corollary being that at least some people who want stronger niche protection, would be better served by more flexible game processes that are more amenable to simultaneous, separate and even independent actions. Or, put differently, they'd benefit more from everybody getting on stage at once and being in the same spotlight, rather than having more spotlight time just for them.

[KorvinStarmast]

@NichG: I suspect many of these weird juxtapositions exists because a lot of tabletop players, despite repeatedly making collectivist-sounding statements, are dirty dirty individualist at heart. Meaning, they can't actually find joy in group success or entertainment in another person being in the spotlight.

Yeah, seen plenty of that.

So, I find niche protection stems from that, when it is not just artefact of treating simultaneous actions sequantially.

the turn based nature of most TTRPGs is a factor in that.

Or, put differently, they'd benefit more from everybody getting on stage at once and being in the same spotlight, rather than having more spotlight time just for them.

IIRC, raids in WoW or going into various instances does that OK; I tended to play the healer back when that was a thing I did. (Didn't last very long).

[Jay R]

Me: I want to sink my grappling hook into the dragon's wings so it can't fly away.

GM: Shouldn't you just attack it?

Me: I want to make sure it can't get away or strafe us.

GM: You should really just attack it.

Me: (Supressing irritation; these kinds of exchanges have been going on all night) Advice noted. I throw my grappling hook.

Advice to player: The DM decides if it will work The DM has told you twice that it won't work. Believe him.

Advice to DM: TELL HIM WHY. "If it hooks (unlikely), and if the dragon tries to fly off, he will fly off. This will not stop it any more than it would stop an automobile. The dragon can carry you off, and it won't even slow him down."

If you think it's necessary, have him roll a very easy INT roll first.

GM: Ok. Roll to hit. (I roll and handily beat the dragon's AC.) Ok. Your grappling hook sticks in the dragon's wing. (Some rounds of combat pass, the dragon is severely wounded.) The dragon is going to take to the air and fly 200 feet away.

Me: I try to pull it back down.

How? Would you try to pull a helicopter or airplane down by pulling on a rope?

GM: Make a Strength check.

Me: (Rolls) Woohoo! Natural 20! That's 24 total.

GM: (Rolls behind screen; I suppose I cannot prove that the dragon didn't honestly roll higher, but I was suspicious). The dragon is too strong, and takes off anyway.

Advice to player: If you don't trust the DM, leave the game. Now. D&D is no fun without that trust.

Advice to DM: Why would the dragon roll against the grappling hook? It makes no difference to the dragon at all. Or is that roll just to save the player's life?

Me: I'm still holding the rope, right? If it takes off, I'm going with it.

Yup, you sure are. That's the only effect that the grappling hook could have had. So you are now hanging by a rope high in the air, in easy reach of dragon claws, with both your hands occupied. The dragon will either kill you or stay up in the air until you fall off and die. The DM saved your life -- poorly. And you're focused on the "poorly" part, rather than the "saved your life" part.

This is not a DM problem. This is not a player problem. This is a miscommunication between the two of you problem. The player is trying to do something that cannot work, and the DM told him so in DMspeak, rather than plain English.

In your words, the DM's position was, "You really can't". Some DMs think that advising you to do something else, rather than just saying, "That's not going to work," preserves player agency. Next time, trust the DM and fight the dragon like a fighter does. Or at least ask the DM, "Why?"

If the dragon notices ...

Love it!

[Jason]

How? Would you try to pull a helicopter or airplane down by pulling on a rope?

A rope attached to a helicopter's rotor by a grappling hook probably would bring it down, and a helicopter trying to start up and fly away would have real problems with a hook and rope attached to its rotor.
That's how I see the "hook in a dragon's wing" working.

[Quertus]

I really don't get why GMs want to play as coy as they do.

That’s a really good question I’ve been trying to answer for myself ever since you posted this.

Much like my Bakugo-adjacent demeanor, I could pull a “12 Angry Men” reference and claim it’s how I was raised. But that feels like a cop out, that it doesn’t explain why self-reflection never flagged it as an error and made it self-terminate.

The problem with analyzing this behavior is that there’s lots of little things tied into this one concept, like the little poem about where GM responsibility ends (at playing the PCs) -> “playing someone else’s character is bad; no risk of crossing anywhere near that line with ‘are you sure?’ tech”, or “Tradition!” / brand recognition (even around here, people know what those words mean; I can even use them irl when talking to coworkers or my kids about things outside the game and they’ll get it). Even things like “I ‘play to find out’, I hate spoilers -> don’t tell me what *would* happen unless it’s something my character definitely knows” gets relegated to being an excuse when I ask myself, “ok, but what if the character definitely *would* know?”, and I still want to prevaricate play it coy.

So why? What’s the deeper reason, the hidden core value that everything else is protecting? I considered, “I believe in letting people fail realistically rather than forcing success”, and even, “I’m just a **** who enjoys their suffering (and the lamentations of their women)”, and even the almost true, “I enjoy their triumph when they puzzle through something that was difficult for them to see, and the potential growth such hard-won victory might engender”.

That last one felt really close, so I explored it, and found, “I want them in the mindset to puzzle through things”. Again, while yes, that’s not only something I value but an important factor in player mindset when playing a game with me, it still didn’t ring true as the root cause.

But it felt the closest so far, so I started with that thought and that mindset, and slowly branched out from there, until I hit something I couldn’t work past, the immovable rock that weathered all “but what if…” storms, that may well be the foundation I had built upon.

I’ve pondered long and hard, and come to the tentative conclusion I’ve found my answer to that question. And the answer my surprise you (“you can’t handle the truth!”, my inner narrator is screaming).

So, why do I play it coy rather than give more explicit direction? What is the core reason, the true answer to that question? Afaict, the answer is “communication”.

Mmmmm… what?

Those puny little ants players outnumber us a hundred to one, and if they ever figure that out there goes our way of life! It's not about food communication, it's about control communication.

*Ahem* let me try again: it’s not about server-based suck vs push communication (or whatever), it’s about real human 2-way communication.

Communication is a 2-way street. If only the GM is engaged in the communication process, it’s suboptimal. The reason I “play it coy” is because I want the optimal, I want the player to be an engaged part of a discussion. “Are you sure?” is reserved words to indicate “get in the right mindset, discussion begins now”.

And then I can say, sure, I haven’t given the player any spoilers you may not want, we can have this discussion on whatever terms we decide are best. And the player also knows both to put on their big boy wrt critical thinking and risks. But those are all secondary to the foundation of Communication.

Or so I think.

And sure, I don’t always get it right, and a less mature me might well have responded, “play your own character” to perfectly reasonable questions - I am a being capable of growth, after all, these changes happen.

But I think I’ve answered your question, at least as far as my personal reasons are concerned.

[Beelzebub1111]

the ability of a grappling hook to "hook" a dragon's wing is part of the question. But let's say, miracle of miracles you manage to hook your rope around the dragon's wing. What are you imagining? the hook around the bone of the wing as if it were a ledge? Lodged into the membrane of the wing like a fishhook? Wrapped around the wings like a hogtie? How do you see that happening by throwing a grappling hook at it? For those that aren't aware a grappling hook is not made to imbed in lving things or hit things that can move, just thrown in the general direction of where a ledge might be and hope it catches on something.

Beyond that there is the entire process of unspooling the rope properly and making sure it can unfurl neatly is a bit more time and attention consuming than rushing to get it out of your backpack and throwing it with a wish and a prayer in under 6 seconds. Like this is something that basically cannot be done as described. Hence my suggestion of describing the whole act of dropping your weapons, retrieving the grapple out of your backpack, and setting it up taking a round before you throw it, to make sure the player things about the whole process of those improvised actions they take.

A pet peve of mine is when players don't think about where the stuff they carry is and they go "Oh, I have this item on my character sheet, I can use it" but then when I ask "where is it" it's always "on my belt" or "Hanging off the side of my backpack" and it gets to the point where player's adventurer packs are empty and everything is hanging off the side or in belts. It's funny, but it's also mildly annoying metagaming. I blame video games.

[Talakeal]

Advice to player: The DM decides if it will work The DM has told you twice that it won't work. Believe him.

Advice to DM: TELL HIM WHY. "If it hooks (unlikely), and if the dragon tries to fly off, he will fly off. This will not stop it any more than it would stop an automobile. The dragon can carry you off, and it won't even slow him down."

If you think it's necessary, have him roll a very easy INT roll first.



How? Would you try to pull a helicopter or airplane down by pulling on a rope?



Advice to player: If you don't trust the DM, leave the game. Now. D&D is no fun without that trust.

Advice to DM: Why would the dragon roll against the grappling hook? It makes no difference to the dragon at all. Or is that roll just to save the player's life?



Yup, you sure are. That's the only effect that the grappling hook could have had. So you are now hanging by a rope high in the air, in easy reach of dragon claws, with both your hands occupied. The dragon will either kill you or stay up in the air until you fall off and die. The DM saved your life -- poorly. And you're focused on the "poorly" part, rather than the "saved your life" part.

This is not a DM problem. This is not a player problem. This is a miscommunication between the two of you problem. The player is trying to do something that cannot work, and the DM told him so in DMspeak, rather than plain English.

In your words, the DM's position was, "You really can't". Some DMs think that advising you to do something else, rather than just saying, "That's not going to work," preserves player agency. Next time, trust the DM and fight the dragon like a fighter does. Or at least ask the DM, "Why?"



Love it!

Great post. A+.

One thing it got me thinking about is the correlation between trust and fudging dice.

I don’t know… some of the best GMs I know fudge, as do some of the worst.

I don’t fudge at all (intentionally), but my players have near zero trust in me (or any other gm for that matter).

In the OPs case, it seems like the most likely case is that the GM was fudging to save the player’s life from their own poorly thought out plan. Which is kind of a lot of conflicting issues of trust and ethics.

[KorvinStarmast]

For Jay R. +10.

A rope attached to a helicopter's rotor by a grappling hook probably would bring it down

Wrong, if the rotors are already turning. It may or may not damage a blade enough to impair flying then the blades hit the hook and knocks it away.

The person holding the rope gets pulled into the air if it attached to the body of the helicopter. (skids, wheels door, external tanks, etc). Unless they let go.

If the rotors are turning, and something rotating catches the hook rather than knocking it away, the rope gets ripped from their hands of whomever tossed it up there - Or, they go on a real short, fast merry go round spin before being flung away - since they aren't strong enough to resist the acceleration.

, and a helicopter trying to start up and fly away would have real problems with a hook and rope attached to its rotor.

Not in the scenario as described.

The rope/chain attached to a hard point on the ground? Yeah, dynamic tip-over could happen, or, the rope might break. Depends on the rope and the helicopter.

If the rope is flung while the rotors are stationary, the helicopter isn't ready to fly right away in the first place. Not the scenario as described.

Your comparison fails.

That's how I see the "hook in a dragon's wing" working.

Since a rotary wing aircraft and a dragon don't fly using the same mechanics (flapping wings and magic versus rotating wings and internal combustion or turbine engines) then no, not a useful illustration.

Now here's case where things can go pear shaped fast.

A grappling hook and attached to a rope tossed into the tail rotor (at flight rpm) such that it catches around the hub and starts beating things up. Could happen, there are some unusual helicopter crashes where stuff like that got caught in the tail rotor and made a mess of things.

But it isn't the person on the ground holding the helicopter doing that. It's other causes.

Beyond that, what kind of helicopter are you envisioning?
R22?
Huey?
Chinook?

[Easy e]

I used to play it coy all the time, for the simple reason I didn't want to give away the game, but still wanted to sign-post danger.


Now, when players come up with things I did not expect, I ask, "Oh, tell me more?" Then I can correct misconceptions, decide if I want to go with it, etc. I need to know player intent before I can make a ruling. However, I tend to heavily favor a "Yes, and/Yes, but" approach to things.

[icefractal]

Ok, there are several legit reasons why a GM could rule against this plan, but "realistically speaking, having a hook + weight on one wing wouldn't impede a dragon" is not one of them and it's aggravating me how much people are suggesting it.

Here's a simple exercise you can do:
1) Put a gallon container of water in a backpack and sprint while wearing it. Not so hard, right?
2) Now tie that container to one ankle with a 1-2' long rope and try to sprint. Preferably on grass so it won't hurt when you trip.

And a gallon container is underselling it, because this is a medium person holding a large dragon, only one size different. It should be more like 15-25 lbs to be equivalent.

Oh, and this is ignoring any pain that the hook would cause. Which is probably reasonable given how tough dragons are, but still another factor where the "ball and chain run" is easier if anything.


The part where the GM would be reasonable to say "nope" is the initial "hooking the grappling hook into the wing membrane" because that's effectively a called shot (not allowed by default) and implies physical injury (not a given if the dragon isn't even "bloodied" yet).

But the player's attempt isn't unreasonable either. The issue is that in most fiction involving dragons, they're treated as a "colossus" where you not only can but have to target specific body parts and "fight unfair" because just going up and brawling with it is suicide. But in D&D, dragons are just "a creature" and direct brawling is the normal method to fight them. So there's a disconnect.

[lesser_minion]

If you, as the DM, have granted a roll for something, then you have also ruled that it is possible in your world, even if it could never happen in the real world.

I don't think that this DM was out of line to rule it possible by D&D physics. I'm not qualified to discuss the mechanics of real-world flight, but I'm pretty sure I could watch someone pull a stunt like this in a film, or even read it in a book, without automatically flagging it as bollocks, whether it was a dragon or a helicopter.

In the case of 5e specifically, I was also under the impression that dragon flight was literally one of the examples given for "magical, but not a magical effect".

[Mordar]

How? Would you try to pull a helicopter or airplane down by pulling on a rope?

The Rock would. It seems like a not-absurdly super-hero kind of action. I don't think it is a D&D fit, but YMMV. At Med vs Lg I might be tempted to allow it, though.

Ok, there are several legit reasons why a GM could rule against this plan, but "realistically speaking, having a hook + weight on one wing wouldn't impede a dragon" is not one of them and it's aggravating me how much people are suggesting it.

Here's a simple exercise you can do:[SNIP]

But the player's attempt isn't unreasonable either. The issue is that in most fiction involving dragons, they're treated as a "colossus" where you not only can but have to target specific body parts and "fight unfair" because just going up and brawling with it is suicide. But in D&D, dragons are just "a creature" and direct brawling is the normal method to fight them. So there's a disconnect.

I think that dragon flight must be in part magical, so I think that complicates an otherwise reasonable argument.

That aside, we have to consider the physics on all sides, right? Where specifically, the hook catches, because that impacts the movement with the weight. The wing beat generates enough upward thrust to move the dragon (weighing what? Some resources say 1200-1800 pounds?)...so the initial beats before the (let's say) 300 lb warrior impacts the wing movement are unopposed. Does the warrior hang on to the rope when the first tension pull really hits? What is the impact of the initial spring (if necessary) from the legs? Lot of moving parts. Probably why I disallow for baseline D&D.

- M

[Talakeal]

The Rock would. It seems like a not-absurdly super-hero kind of action. I don't think it is a D&D fit, but YMMV. At Med vs Lg I might be tempted to allow it, though.

There is no leverage though, strength literally doesn’t factor into it. It’s the equivalent of flying by picking yourself up.

Edit: Assuming the rope isn’t anchored against something. I could easily see the Rock doing this with an anchored rope, or with his bare hands like Captain America did in Civil War.

[GloatingSwine]

If you, as the DM, have granted a roll for something, then you have also ruled that it is possible in your world, even if it could never happen in the real world.

Yeah, this is a microcosm example of the Pumpkin Incident where a DM didn't want to live with the consequences of saying yes earlier.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, this is a microcosm example of the Pumpkin Incident where a DM didn't want to live with the consequences of saying yes earlier.

The way to handle the Pumpkin incident, as a player, is via role play, not complaining about it. Like this example in that thread

*standing in a chamber full of mangled bodies, one vampire thrall stands shuddering at sword point, whimpering:*
"Why are you dddoing this? What ddddo you wwwwant? Strahd is willing to give you anything!"
*splattered in gore, you reply, gravely voice and steely eyed:*
"I WANT my pumpkins back. WHERE ARE MY PUMPKINS?!"
*the thrall cowers from your rage* -" Puupuuu pumpkins? I ddon't know? we can ffffind some for you maybe? Strahd has extensive holdings..."
*deadpan stare*
"No. I want MY pumpkins."
"bbbuuut, we ccca cccan't!"
"Then what good are you to me?" *runs through the poor, stuttering thrall and watch as he spits up blood and falls, silently clutching the gaping wound as he bleeds out on the floor*
"We're coming for you Strahd, you son of a bitch..."

A superior approach to hitting the internet and complaining.
The play's the thing.

[Mastikator]

There is no leverage though, strength literally doesn’t factor into it. It’s the equivalent of flying by picking yourself up.

Edit: Assuming the rope isn’t anchored against something. I could easily see the Rock doing this with an anchored rope, or with his bare hands like Captain America did in Civil War.

Depends on how hard and fast you can yank it. You can't weigh it down unless you're an elephant, but if you are Captain America you might be able to yank it really hard and cause it to swerve mid air. (or if you're Captain America and you do have leverage, you could hold it in place).

That said, the OP said they had a +4 to their strength, so they're not captain america. They're the rock. And the rock- cool and strong though he may be, does not pull down helicopters nor dragons with a rope.

Also the dragon has claws and the rope is made of rope, I means seriously how hard is it for the dragon to just cut it. This idea is folly from the start ok I'll stop