A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

At which point I would have to wonder on what basis the original difficulty of the check was assigned as it obviously couldn't have been based on the the suitability of the wall for climbing as that information didn't exist before the check was made...

I think in games where the GM doesn't have authority to set difficulties, it would be reasonable.

 

[FrogReaver]

In my games, the sheer ice wall would be established as part of framing the scene. So, it's the GM's decision, but it's in the GM's role of adventure-writer/designer, not ... a decision made when the PC decides to try to climb the wall. I get ... prickly when my sense of fair-play gets violated, and deciding the wall is sheer ice when a PC decides to try to climb it would ... grate.

In my games the exact nature of the wall's climbability doesn't tend to come up unless the player shows an interest in climbing the wall. It would get rather old having to narrate the climbability of every wall I ever introduce into the game. I suspect your game functions in much that same way. You primarily elaborate on details the players express an interest in. In which case the wall's details only get narrated when the player express an interest in interacting with it. It's simply a method of framing.

What I personally would object to is not if the DM framed a wall as a solid sheet of ice after I expressed an interest in interacting with it, but if he framed every wall ever encountered that I expressed an interest in climbing as unclimbable. The issue there for me isn't agency, but immersion. Doing such would instantly break my immersion. *Now if we were in an ice filled cavern then I'd again be fine with every wall encountered being unclimbable, at least without special gear to do so. Why the difference? Because the issue with framing unclimbable walls isn't about agency for me, it's about immersion.

 

[prabe]

In my games the exact nature of the wall's climbability doesn't tend to come up unless the player shows an interest in climbing the wall. It would get rather old having to narrate the climbability of every wall I ever introduce into the game. I suspect your game functions in much that same way. You primarily elaborate on details the players express an interest in. In which case the wall's details only get narrated when the player express an interest in interacting with it. It's simply a method of framing.

What I personally would object to is not if the DM framed a wall as a solid sheet of ice after I expressed an interest in interacting with it, but if he framed every wall ever encountered that I expressed an interest in climbing as unclimbable. The issue there for me isn't agency, but immersion. Doing such would instantly break my immersion. *Now if we were in an ice filled cavern then I'd again be fine with every wall encountered being unclimbable, at least without special gear to do so. Why the difference? Because the issue isn't about agency for me, it's about immersion.

There's maybe a little daylight between us, but not much. I think that if for whatever reason someone is thinking about climbing down the wall, it's only fair to describe it as sheer ice with no handholds before they commit to the attempt, because the failure state there is falling (whereas the failure state of failing to climb up from the bottom is remaining at the bottom). I suspect that's how you'd run it, too.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think in games where the GM doesn't have authority to set difficulties, it would be reasonable.

Yep. AFAIK Burning Wheel isn't like that though. And it has super steep DC curve and compared to D&D it is far easier for the tasks to be simply mathematically impossible, so setting the DC matters far more. I'd imagine that situations where a task that is pretty easy for a skilled character is literally impossible for one that is not skilled in the area are pretty common.

 

[FrogReaver]

There's maybe a little daylight between us, but not much. I think that if for whatever reason someone is thinking about climbing down the wall, it's only fair to describe it as sheer ice with no handholds before they commit to the attempt, because the failure state there is falling (whereas the failure state of failing to climb up from the bottom is remaining at the bottom). I suspect that's how you'd run it, too.

Oh I 100% agree. When a player says I do X and I've not yet established an important detail then he always has the opportunity to change the action. It's only after I've established that important detail and he says - I'm still trying to climb down the wall - well at that point I'm either ruling auto failure or setting a very high DC.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yep. AFAIK Burning Wheel isn't like that though. And it has super steep DC curve and compared to D&D it is far easier for the tasks to be simply mathematically impossible, so setting the DC matters far more. I'd imagine that situations where a task that is pretty easy for a skilled character is literally impossible for one that is not skilled in the area.

Is there any real difference in setting an impossibly high DC and just ruling auto failure?

 

[FrogReaver]

I think both they and myself would be uncomfortable with no mechanics for combat. Not due to a lack of trust, but because combat isn't like gauging a social reaction, or the solving of a puzzle. I am comfortable adjudicating those things, but not comfortable adjudicating combat without some kind of system

It's not just that. If combat had no mechanics and was simply always narrated by the DM I personally would find it rather dull. I imagine I'm not alone there.

It's almost like the objections against having DM decides mechanics is centered around the idea that the DM always decides without any mechanics. But that's not how D&D is typically played even in non-combat situations. In non-combat there are times when the DM decides success with no mechanics and there are times when success is decided with mechanics.

 

[prabe]

Is there any real difference in setting an impossibly high DC and just ruling auto failure?

If you set a DC, you're saying it's possible, even if the DC is egregiously high. If you say it's not possible, it's not possible. In practice, it only matters if the party has resources they can burn and if they feel the task is important enough to burn them. You probably knew this.

 

[Lanefan]

Is there any real difference in setting an impossibly high DC and just ruling auto failure?

Yes: if you have a rule to the effect of "20 always succeeds" there can be a rather big difference.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes: if you have a rule to the effect of "20 always succeeds" there can be a rather big difference.

That would be a system where the dm cannot set the dc impossibly high