Agamon
Adventurer
I love EN World. We're such an ironic lot . . .
We all also have proficiency in navel gazing.
I love EN World. We're such an ironic lot . . .
I think it is lack of "player expectation".
Ergo, you don't have all the "negative emotions" I mentioned earlier instantly popping up at the table because the player knows that it's up to the DM to make a ruling....not the player, not the rules.
Yep. This.Heavy rules for the game defining stuff (spells, weapon damage and properties, number of attacks)
Light rules for the low scope and less important stuff (how many tricks a dog can learn in a week, how big a table can a human leap over in a single bound, if an dragonborn can hide behind a birchtree)
Basically if most groups do something at least once every 6 hours of play,
there should be a rule for it.
However, I've also had players get outright angry when I say "The guard is unconvinced. He's fanatically loyal to his church, and he's not going to just look the other way because you rolled good on your Diplomacy check....which I didn't ask for....". I get all the normal stuff: "You're not playing by the rules!", "You have to at least consider my roll of 29!", "You have no idea how this skill works, do you?!", etc. All because it made no sense in the game situation and circumstance...so I didn't treat the roll as an instant "I'm your bestest friend now!" thing.
If you were playing a halfling with a dagger and hit a dragon (clearly making the AC), how would you feel if the DM told you "I didn't ask for you to roll damage" because it made no sense for a dagger to pierce a dragon's hide? Combat works because we all know and agree upon the rules and there is clarification.
If you've made it clear how you deal with diplomacy upfront, that's one thing. But there is a concept of a character who can fast-talk anyone, who could convince the guard that he was really Pope Benedict and he shouldn't mention the visit to anyone, and that's not that outlandish a character concept as D&D characters go, so it makes no sense to you, but may well make sense to other people. The lack of clarification here, both inherently in the Diplomacy rules and how you're applying them is what's causing the problem.
Most of us have very little real world experience in life-or-death melee combat. We all interact with other people on a regular basic.
And if the DM really doesn't think that the guard should be able to be fast-talked in this situation, all he has to do is rule that the guard is intensely loyal (+5 to the DC), not easily fooled (+5 DC), and he has met the Pope but you're an elf and your voice doesn't sound the same (+10 DC). Now the DC is effectively impossible, and it would have saved time and frustration all around by just stating that "you sense that you won't be able to pull off your usual fast-talk routine on this guard."
It might just come down to some people like firm authoritarian rules in their imagination games and some don't. I wonder if people who prefer the 5e approach are more Cat people than Dog people?