I want my actions to matter

[hawkeyefan]

It's extremely unlikely the PCs would be able to assess the difficulty that closely without in fact trying to climb it; and the PCs' reality is the framework I try to use when describing things to the players. If I'm not clear enough they can always ask questions.

So when the Thief checks the wall over, while I might say something like "It looks reasonably climb-able for a trained professional like you", I'm never going to say "It's DC 15*".

Never mind if there's something about the wall they haven't yet seen or noticed (or even looked for) e.g. the top 10 feet of the wall has been greased to prevent climbing, or there's a disguised set of handholds that make climbing way easier after the first ten feet or so, why would I just give that away?

* - or system equivalent.

Yes,I fully understand your reasoning behind it. I felt the same way in 1986.

 

[BookTenTiger]

Ah, thanks for telling me I’m a bad GM. Happy Holidays to you, too, Lanefan!

But no, it’s not bad GMing. Given the option of sharing the DC and having the players know the odds (the horror!) or not giving them the DC leaving them to rely solely on a description that may or may not have given an accurate picture of the situation… well, to me, one of those is much more preferred than the other, both as a player and a GM.

I mean really… the idea that knowing the climb check is a DC 15 is problematic in any way… frankly, it’s silly.

The meta-boogey-man’s got you, Lan! You need to shake it off and realize he’s not real!!

I'm with you here.

The problem for me in saying "the wall looks reasonably easy to climb" is that the statement might mean different things to different players. If instead I say "the wall looks reasonably easy to climb, so it's a DC 12," I'm being really clear as a DM, and I figure the "metaknowledge" just represents the ability of the characters to assess the difficulty of climbing the wall against their own skills.

Plus it's super fun when the players know they need a DC 16, roll a total of 14, and then the cleric remembers they cast Bless! Or the player rolls a 17 and feels like they just got away with it.

To me communicating DCs also builds trust between myself and the players. When I play, it never feels good to feel like my rolls don't matter, that the DM might have already chosen an outcome no matter what I roll. When I say a DC, I'm really telling the players that there is a clear chance for success or failure, and it's up to the dice (or their own cleverness) to decide.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm with you here.

The problem for me in saying "the wall looks reasonably easy to climb" is that the statement might mean different things to different players. If instead I say "the wall looks reasonably easy to climb, so it's a DC 12," I'm being really clear as a DM, and I figure the "metaknowledge" just represents the ability of the characters to assess the difficulty of climbing the wall against their own skills.

Plus it's super fun when the players know they need a DC 16, roll a total of 14, and then the cleric remembers they cast Bless! Or the player rolls a 17 and feels like they just got away with it.

To me communicating DCs also builds trust between myself and the players. When I play, it never feels good to feel like my rolls don't matter, that the DM might have already chosen an outcome no matter what I roll. When I say a DC, I'm really telling the players that there is a clear chance for success or failure, and it's up to the dice (or their own cleverness) to decide.

Yup. This is all so much more important than withholding the info from the players in some attempt at verisimilitude.

Most of the time, folks have a good enough idea of odds for tasks they may attempt that sharing the DC is suitable to make it clear… especially if we’re supposed to be accurately describing things any way. And on the few occasions when the character might not have a strong sense of the odds… so what? That sliver of verisimilitude doesn’t amount to anything compared to maximizing player agency and trust by being transparent.

 

[Maxperson]

Ah, thanks for telling me I’m a bad GM. Happy Holidays to you, too, Lanefan!

But no, it’s not bad GMing. Given the option of sharing the DC and having the players know the odds (the horror!) or not giving them the DC leaving them to rely solely on a description that may or may not have given an accurate picture of the situation… well, to me, one of those is much more preferred than the other, both as a player and a GM.

I mean really… the idea that knowing the climb check is a DC 15 is problematic in any way… frankly, it’s silly.

The meta-boogey-man’s got you, Lan! You need to shake it off and realize he’s not real!!

We've had our share of disagreements, but I wanted to chime in and say that I don't think it's bad DMing, either. It's different DMing and I prefer not knowing in advance, but I've played with DMs who give out the numbers and just do my best to ignore them. I still have fun in those games.

 

[pemerton]

That sliver of verisimilitude doesn’t amount to anything compared to maximizing player agency and trust by being transparent.

Hang on - are you postulating that this is one way to make declared actions matter?

 

[Bagpuss]

The Players: Everything I do must succeed every time for me to have "fun".

Any player that thinks this doesn't understand good stories, for success to be fun, interesting or meaningful in a story there needs to be a certain amount failure before hand. Thankfully I've not come across people like this after pre-school.

 

[Bagpuss]

We've had our share of disagreements, but I wanted to chime in and say that I don't think it's bad DMing, either. It's different DMing and I prefer not knowing in advance, but I've played with DMs who give out the numbers and just do my best to ignore them. I still have fun in those games.

Gotta say I've fine with either way and as a DM I've used both in the past, even in the same session. To call either method bad DM is a bit hyperbolic, we don't need to insult each other over a matter of style.

A lot of games (outside D&D) have actual fixed target numbers linked to the narrative words you use for tasks anyway.

So when you say something is easy it's DC 5, routine DC 10, average DC 15 for example. So knowing the rules is bad metagaming?

 

[bloodtide]

The issue is when the DM forces what he wants to happen, ignoring what should happen. You've said you engage in railroading. On a railroad the players' actions can't matter, since you are going to force what you want no matter what.

Sure if you use 'railroad' as "anything the DM does the players don't like".

In nearly all cases the bad or worse players will defeat themselves....so no 'railroading' is needed....they will stay on their own Track of Doom.

So long as you keep saying "the players" you can't be correct here. Players in general don't believe that they must succeed. Some rare few probably do, but as a whole "the players" don't.

This is not what I experience. If the players are not thinking the must always succeed, then why to they complain so much?

Anyway, the demons still kept coming through and I'd periodically roll to see how well other heroes were handling things. The problem became steadily worse and rumors of things would reach Amn. I wasn't going to force the demons onto the PCs/players, but the issue still happened in the background, adding to the depth of the world. They understood things were happening from beyond their control and influence.

Right, this is a perfect example of what I said: Because the players wished something, you as the DM altered the game reality to make it so. The players say "we don't like the demon stuff" and the DM says "yes, players, the demons go away."

I really don't get the point of why you high light the 'demon story' in the back ground. What is the point if it will never effect the game? Sure as part of your DM Novel you can say what is happening far away from the game....but what is the point?

No. If they do something like that you have two choices. Improvise fairly, not as a counter to what they do, but what the organization would fairly have done. Pause to think ahead at what defenses they would have in place and then let the players begin their attempt. Or pause the game and let them know you need to prep for this since you weren't expecting it. Then they can encounter the defenses and plan ways around them.

Well, one of the Tag Line of my game is that it's Unfair. Maybe players should pay more attention to words.

But it's not like a DM can be fair when they outclass their players. I can think of tons of things...but the bad players struggle with even one. One from just a few weeks ago: The players struggle to get into the vault...and find it only has a small amount of loot. Unhappy the players whine and cry about their actions not mattering. And to this day if it get brought up they will whine and cry about it. Of course the simple truth is : there was a hidden vault inside the vault. But the players can't even conceive of that idea. So they never checked....just whined and complained.

The important part is not to force what you want(railroading) or to just come up with ways to shut down their ideas as they come up(adversarial DMing).

That sound fine in general.

Well, except my game is a full railroad game....

Or not, because it doesn't work that way.

I think it does. I'll have to check to be sure......but this seems like a good answer to "Why do players so LOVE to do random things to "surprise" the DM?"

Just let them know that the guards don't fall asleep. My players wouldn't do that. They'd leave and buy potions of invisibility or passwall scrolls to bypass the guards. You know, planning to overcome the defenses.

I'm not a Buddy DM that is on the players side and a fan of the players and give them endless OOC help.


On DC....well I have another thing that hundreds of players and DMs do...and yet "Nobody" here has ever even heard a rumor of it:

So the Buddy DM says the DC is 15.

Then the players pick the character with the right skill/ability or whatever, with the highest plus and make sure to add the mundane and magic or expertise or advantage or whatever needed to make sure they get that 15. Then they roll and get higher then that 15 needed...amazingly.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure if you use 'railroad' as "anything the DM does the players don't like".

No. 100% wrong.

This is not what I experience. If the players are not thinking the must always succeed, then why to they complain so much?

Right, this is a perfect example of what I said: Because the players wished something, you as the DM altered the game reality to make it so. The players say "we don't like the demon stuff" and the DM says "yes, players, the demons go away."

The game reality wasn't altered even 1%. The game reality already included Amn. The game reality already included ships. The game already reality included pirates. Tell me, what was altered in the game reality?

And unless you are calling me a liar, don't tell me that the demons went away when I explicitly told you that they did not. Are you calling me a liar?

I really don't get the point of why you high light the 'demon story' in the back ground. What is the point if it will never effect the game? Sure as part of your DM Novel you can say what is happening far away from the game....but what is the point?

See, if you don't railroad and you have a world that moves outside of the PCs vision, it adds depth to the game that apparently you can't even imagine.

Well, one of the Tag Line of my game is that it's Unfair. Maybe players should pay more attention to words.

Then you should play solo. There's no point in anyone playing in your game if you are going to be the only voice that truly matters.

That sound fine in general.

Well, except my game is a full railroad game....

Then you really have no business having players. Just write a story and read it to yourself.

You also effectively have no game. A game is something everyone plays. If you are railroading the players, you are the only one "playing."

I think it does.

You are again, 100% wrong

I'm not a Buddy DM that is on the players side and a fan of the players and give them endless OOC help.

Nothing I said indicated that they needed OOC help or a buddy.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm with you here.

The problem for me in saying "the wall looks reasonably easy to climb" is that the statement might mean different things to different players. If instead I say "the wall looks reasonably easy to climb, so it's a DC 12," I'm being really clear as a DM, and I figure the "metaknowledge" just represents the ability of the characters to assess the difficulty of climbing the wall against their own skills.

And when they find out that hard way that the wall is greased and rolling a 15 still ain't nowhere near good enough, then what?

More broadly, giving the DC both assumes the PCs' assessment is always correct (whcih isn't guaranteed, people misjudge things all the time) and that there's no hidden information. Saying, for example, that it looks fairly easy to climb (because they didn't notice the grease) but then telling them it's DC 22 is a pretty big red flag that all isn't as it seems; so why would I do that?

To me communicating DCs also builds trust between myself and the players. When I play, it never feels good to feel like my rolls don't matter, that the DM might have already chosen an outcome no matter what I roll. When I say a DC, I'm really telling the players that there is a clear chance for success or failure, and it's up to the dice (or their own cleverness) to decide.

The fact they're rolling at all should tell them there's (by all appearances) a clear chance of success or failure; and barring unnoticed complications they'll usually be able to determine whether their odds of success are high, reasonable, low, or good-luck-with-that.

By the same token, while I'll tell them what armour their foes are wearing in combat I'll never give them the actual AC value.