I want my actions to matter

[Crimson Longinus]

I'd also like to point out that as 5e has very little examples of what DC should go with what fictional situation, different perfectly reasonable GMs will assign different DCs to the same situation. So giving the actual number and not just description of the situation will improve communication. Granted, over time, if the GM is being consistent, the players will probably learn the logic of given GM's DC assigning process.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It’s not complete, though. If the goal is to give complete info, then why not give the number?

Because the actual goal is to provide a clear picture of what the PC experiences. And they're not given a number.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

It’s not complete, though. If the goal is to give complete info, then why not give the number?

I think the idea here is that the DM describes the scene in a way that is not breaking immersion. For some (like me and you), giving a DC to climb a wall or whatever game-facing numerical description, doesn't take us out of the game. For others, like a few folks arguing in this thread, it apparently does. In @Lanefan, et al.'s view, the DM describes the scene in a way that the player knows how difficult/possible things are given what their character can interpret as a being in the game world. The player can then describe the action while the DM does the calculation behind the scene.

I don't personally feel the need to play this way, but I understand the appeal. It's not about taking away player agency (which seems what might be getting up your nose), but about preserving immersion (as unnecessary as I find this approach to making the game more appealing).

Only if one was already crossed when I said I share DCs and then Lanefan pointed out that sharing DCs is bad GMing.

You can decide for yourself what constitutes crossing a social line. I found that you did, for whatever that's worth. I've been behind most of the arguments you've made in this thread btw... just being fair to both sides here.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I haven't caught up on 15 pages so this may be redundant, but...

I have come to the conclusion that the way to make "player actions matter" is to have fewer rules. I know the 5e motto is, supposedly, "Rulings not rules" but 5e still has a lot of rules. And while that applies to some areas (spellcasting, for example) more than others (social interactions with NPCs, for example) the result seems to be that DMs/players think there are supposed to be rules...because, Look!, there are all these detailed rules for this other thing...so when the rules for one thing are intentionally vague people still try to figure out and apply RAW.

And I'm a case study of this phenomenon. I'm finding that when I GM Shadowdark, my current favorite RPG, I am always looking for ways to say, "Yes, and..." to crazy player actions. I think it's partly the result of intentionally sparse rules, but also partly the result of the intentionally sparse area descriptions. Whereas with 5e I was always double checking if there is a rule, and re-reading the area description to see if that case is covered, and trying to do the "correct" thing. Something about Shadowdark freed me from that straitjacket.

 

[tetrasodium]

You're advocating for vague or incomplete information. To intentionally obfuscate elements of the game to confound players. And for what? To avoid saying a number? To avoid giving the player a clear idea on their odds of success? To maintain some sense of doubt even though there's already such a thing because of the dice?

Of course the wall doesn't have a big number on it. Neither does the character. But the character is, for purposes of playing the game, a collection of numbers. These numbers mean things.

Keeping them from players is just unnecessary and silly. All to preserve a sense of immersion that's so fragile that mention of a number shatters it. But not all the other numbers... just the one the player needs to understand the odds. All the other numbers are fine to talk about.

And you have the gall to say that sharing the DC is bad GMing?

It's not obfuscating or incomplete if the PCs have no reason to know it. Take the 50ft tall slick(?) wall example that was thrown out, lets say for discussion purposes that it surrounds a secure location like a prison military fort or whatever... The players probably already know that the prison/military fort/whatever is on the other side & getting inside is an important part of the adventure or needed as part of some side goal because we've shifted to a useless example if they are just scaling a random wall in a whiteroom for internet points just because it was there.

• If that wall has traps hidden to discourage climbing, that's not going to be a readily visible thing
• If that wall has matriculations, pc's mightbe able to see them from a casual glance as part of their approach. Those matriculations may also be hidden & only seen from the climb itself
  • The PCs certainly can't see who or what is on top of the wall unless it was large enough to be seen on approach.
• If the slick substance on the wall is poison irritating or numbing on contact those are all things that could dramatically impact the DC but only become clear with the climb itself or some other form of proactive analysis
• etc

What you are advocating for is more of a third person over the shoulder camera swivel cutscene being performed automatically for the PCs with glowing DC numbers floating there.

 

[pointofyou]

Because the actual goal is to provide a clear picture of what the PC experiences. And they're not given a number.

The player has all the numbers on the sheet and telling them one more number is a way to give the player a clearer picture of what the PC is experiencing. The actual goal is to give the player the same chance to gauge the odds as the character would have.

 

[pointofyou]

It's not obfuscating or incomplete if the PCs have no reason to know it. Take the 50ft tall slick(?) wall example that was thrown out, lets say for discussion purposes that it surrounds a secure location like a prison military fort or whatever... The players probably already know that the prison/military fort/whatever is on the other side & getting inside is an important part of the adventure or needed as part of some side goal because we've shifted to a useless example if they are just scaling a random wall in a whiteroom for internet points just because it was there.

• If that wall has traps hidden to discourage climbing, that's not going to be a readily visible thing
• If that wall has matriculations, pc's mightbe able to see them from a casual glance as part of their approach. Those matriculations may also be hidden & only seen from the climb itself
  • The PCs certainly can't see who or what is on top of the wall unless it was large enough to be seen on approach.
• If the slick substance on the wall is poison irritating or numbing on contact those are all things that could dramatically impact the DC but only become clear with the climb itself or some other form of proactive analysis
• etc

What you are advocating for is more of a third person over the shoulder camera swivel cutscene being performed automatically for the PCs with glowing DC numbers floating there.

If the PC can plausibly perceive the DC of the task it's not advocating for any kind of third-person cutscene or glowing numbers. It's giving the player information the character has. I agree that there may well be parts of a fortified wall the character might not be able to see and it would be reasonable to have those make fora hidden DC. Some of your examples seem as though they might be detectable but I'm not inclined to argue hard about those.

And I'm pretty sure the word you want isn't "matriculation" but is instead "machicolation."

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because the actual goal is to provide a clear picture of what the PC experiences. And they're not given a number.

Of course not. To the characters, what they see is a wet vertical climb, though the brick and mortar may offer some handholds. So they have an idea of how difficult a climb it may be. They know relatively speaking how good they may be at climbing.

But to the player, we take those details and we translate them into the language of the game, and we know it's a DC18 or whatever. We also know the character has a +8 to Athletics or Climbing.

This way, both the character and the player have a sense of the character's ability as well as the obstacle's difficulty, and they have this idea in the appropriate manner. The character in the world, the player in the game.

Removing the player's idea of the odds leaves them less informed than the character.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the idea here is that the DM describes the scene in a way that is not breaking immersion. For some (like me and you), giving a DC to climb a wall or whatever game-facing numerical description, doesn't take us out of the game. For others, like a few folks arguing in this thread, it apparently does. In @Lanefan, et al.'s view, the DM describes the scene in a way that the player knows how difficult/possible things are given what their character can interpret as a being in the game world. The player can then describe the action while the DM does the calculation behind the scene.

I don't personally feel the need to play this way, but I understand the appeal. It's not about taking away player agency (which seems what might be getting up your nose), but about preserving immersion (as unnecessary as I find this approach to making the game more appealing).

I think it's less about immersion and more about the reflex to hold back information. That sharing information is somehow making things too easy. I know that's how I could feel at times in the past when I shared this sentiment.

"Metagaming" used to mean considering elements outside the game. Now it means considering elements that are specifically of the game.

You can decide for yourself what constitutes crossing a social line. I found that you did, for whatever that's worth. I've been behind most of the arguments you've made in this thread btw... just being fair to both sides here.

I feel I responded in kind, but your observation is noted.

 

[tetrasodium]

If the PC can plausibly perceive the DC of the task it's not advocating for any kind of third-person cutscene or glowing numbers. It's giving the player information the character has. I agree that there may well be parts of a fortified wall the character might not be able to see and it would be reasonable to have those make fora hidden DC. Some of your examples seem as though they might be detectable but I'm not inclined to argue hard about those.

And I'm pretty sure the word you want isn't "matriculation" but is instead "machicolation."

That would be something like an intelligence or wisdom check and require further interaction from the player along the lines of "given my athletics score of xx, how am I feeling about my odds on this climb?" Or some similar example of the player actually playing.