jasper
Rotten DM
So boss. Lowkey13 credit needs to be pulled. Shall we gift him with Meepo's Boots of Swimming a Quickcrete product? No man diss D&D and gets away it.
I know the walk of the lego d4 fours!
D&D 5E Forked from the Quasit Thread - Some DMing Advice Learned from my Mistakes.
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
So boss. Lowkey13 credit needs to be pulled. Shall we gift him with Meepo's Boots of Swimming a Quickcrete product? No man diss D&D and gets away it.
I know the walk of the lego d4 fours!
Greg Benage
Legend
When in doubt, ask, "What are you trying to accomplish?" If the player says, "My character is trying to shoot the moon with an arrow," that's a good indication of assumption clash. It may be a good opportunity to add detail or context to the setting or situation. In most cases, you and your players shouldn't have to choose between verisimilitude and fun.
I totally agree there are different kinds of players who want different things out of the game. But apart from some comedy games, assumption clash is pretty much always a bug rather than a feature.
I totally agree there are different kinds of players who want different things out of the game. But apart from some comedy games, assumption clash is pretty much always a bug rather than a feature.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Sure, it may be a clash of assumptions because (for example) the player is confused about the context of the situation. But I think it could be more fundamental than that.
I took the example of shooting the moon right out of the section of the DM that describes the process by which the DM must decide whether an ability check is appropriate in order to point out that, if you don't "believe in auto-fails," then you may arrive at unwanted outcomes such as the one described. Because "auto-fail" is something a DM must decide upon from time to time, at least according to the process of adjudication described in the DMG.
As I see it, what happened here was: DM said a particular option was impossible. Player tried to do that impossible thing. DM then decided it was possible, if uncertain, by allowing an ability check. If, instead DM said something like, "The warrior snickers at your attempt to intimidate him, noting in just a few harsh words that you are badly outnumbered here and any move toward violence would be unwise." This outcome would reinforce the previously established context that the guard isn't letting anyone past who wants to see anyone other than the chieftain. The player could then give up or try something else. That might have resolved the bad outcome described.
It is possible, of course, that the player simply didn't understand that bit of established context in which case we have a clash of assumptions. If, however, there is a "playstyle" at the table wherein any given action can get an ability check ("don't believe in auto-fails"), then we potentially have a situation where "roleplaying can diminish if players feel that their die rolls, rather than their decisions and characterizations, always determine success..." (DMG, page 236). The player doesn't really have to pay attention to the situation at all and try to come up with a good solution to the challenge. All he or she need do is try to get a high bonus to an ability check and then perform that task to deal with the challenge. That sounds like it could be the case here.
Or maybe it's not! Either way, I think the analysis is useful and interesting.
L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
Greg Benage
Legend
I don't think we really disagree, except that I'd probably ask, "What are you trying to accomplish?" when the player announced that they wanted to intimidate the guardsman. Maybe I'd just get, "I'm trying to bully the guardsman so I can get inside," but that's okay. I can add some context, based on what the character should be expected to know about the situation, and I can also probe for what the player thinks happens next, even if they can bully the guardsman.
I'd rather offer context upon which the player can make a decision before attempting an action, rather than allowing the character to attempt the doomed-to-fail action and then offering correction (e.g. "The warrior snickers at your attempt to intimidate him").
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
That's reasonable, but I think it misses what the OP said to the players PRIOR to what I assume was a Charisma (Intimidation) check: "The guards tell them that unless they have business with teh chieftain they can go pound salt." That is the DM telling them what is and isn't possible through the NPCs. Now, that may not have come across as clear to the players in which case we have a "clash of assumptions," but as I mentioned before, it could also be due to what the "playstyle" encourages. If that's the case, then the source of the problem (to the extent it's viewed as a problem) may not be what the OP thinks it is.
I don't think the DM's role is to protect players from making an action that is doomed to fail, provided the DM has done a reasonably adequate job of setting up the situation. In this situation, as an outsider hearing a recounting of the scene, my decision as a player would NOT have been to try to intimidate the guards no matter what my character was good at skills-wise. I would have just told the guards I had important business with the chieftain since that plays to what the DM established.
Greg Benage
Legend
Yeah, me either. If I'm ever in doubt about whether or not I've done the latter, I ask, "What are you trying to accomplish?"
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
In the case of this specific example, would you have told the player that intimidation was impossible after he or she told you what the character was trying to accomplish, in effect, negating the action (or giving them the chance to withdraw their declaration) or would you narrate the result of the adventurer's action as a failure?
I've trained my players to be specific as to their goal and approach when describing what they want to do. So I know right away when what they establish seems inappropriate for the context of what I have described in the scene. That's a pretty rare occurrence these days due to my obsessive focus on clear and concise description.
Greg Benage
Legend
I'd probably second-guess whether I'd adequately set the scene as soon as the players said they were doing this: "Now, the PC's march up to the chieftain's hut and demand entrance." I don't want to just "negate their action," which is why I ask what they want to accomplish. Maybe they have a clever plan, I don't know. Failing that, I probably didn't do a good enough job describing the situation. I'd rather fix that than let the characters go all chaotic stupid when the players didn't think they were being chaotic stupid because they didn't understand the situation.
It sounds like you rarely encounter this issue due to your well-trained players and obsessive focus on clear and concise description, which is great. For the OP, though, it may still be a useful check to ask what the players are trying to accomplish if and when these situations pop up. Hell, he may find out he's doing a great job of setting up the situation, the players know exactly what's up, and they just want to go all chaotic stupid. Either way, good to know.
Another solution to this dilemma, which I've found to work well with most groups:
DM: Everybody make a Wisdom (Insight) check, DC 10.
One or two players: I succeed!
DM: Then you know that your plan won't work, because <reasons>.
That one player, you know who I mean: But, but, but, what about <other reasons>?
DM: Still no. You'd have much better success doing <fun option A> or <fun option B> instead of your current plan, which is doomed to long, drawn-out failure.
Some other player: Oh, let's do <fun option B>! That sounds totally like a thing we would do!
It works because you're letting the PCs figure out their plan is bogus instead of just telling them at a meta-game level. This is SUPER IMPORTANT, because it lets the players feel like their PCs have accomplished something in gaining this knowledge. It works best if you butter the players up a little bit: "Your expertise as a soldier tells you that your plan won't work; the enemy would be insane to actually fall for it."
Then you give the players at least 2 other options, so that they still feel like they have agency. Get them choosing between fun courses of action. Boring courses of action are off the table.
DM: Everybody make a Wisdom (Insight) check, DC 10.
One or two players: I succeed!
DM: Then you know that your plan won't work, because <reasons>.
That one player, you know who I mean: But, but, but, what about <other reasons>?
DM: Still no. You'd have much better success doing <fun option A> or <fun option B> instead of your current plan, which is doomed to long, drawn-out failure.
Some other player: Oh, let's do <fun option B>! That sounds totally like a thing we would do!
It works because you're letting the PCs figure out their plan is bogus instead of just telling them at a meta-game level. This is SUPER IMPORTANT, because it lets the players feel like their PCs have accomplished something in gaining this knowledge. It works best if you butter the players up a little bit: "Your expertise as a soldier tells you that your plan won't work; the enemy would be insane to actually fall for it."
Then you give the players at least 2 other options, so that they still feel like they have agency. Get them choosing between fun courses of action. Boring courses of action are off the table.
Last edited:
