I want my actions to matter

[pointofyou]

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.

My own tendency in 5e is to tell people who are proficient in a thing what the DC is if it's perceptible and I might not wait to be asked. I also gate some rolls behind proficiency both in the sense of "You must be proficient to even try" and in the sense of "If you are proficient you do not need to roll" which I realize isn't at all the design intent but which I feel serves the game better. Obviously different GMs will be differently attached to the surprises they have in mind for their players.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

Most of the things you have listed in your bullet points wouldn't affect the DC of a climb. They seem more about separate ability checks that would be needed to notice traps or guards or what have you. Those would not be part of a check made to climb a wall.

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.

No, it's not. It's advocating for taking the information that the characters have and then translating that information into the language of the game for the player.

I mean, so many things in D&D and RPGs in general involve number scores. Numbers are a core part of the gameplay... they're everywhere. This idea that they simply fade into the background unless a DC is shared, and then all of a sudden it's like Neo seeing the Matrix... it doesn't seem like a legitimate concern.

It seems to me, more about withholding information in some sense of making things difficult. That the DC of the ability check isn't a sufficient challenge for the character or player... we have to add some uncertainty on the player side to make things harder.

It also enables GMs to fudge, either for or against the players. It allows the GM to use gotcha tactics.

Far better to eliminate all that and share the DC and play the game and keep things moving rather than trying to artificially pump up what's a minor challenge.

 

[mamba]

The actual goal is to give the player the same chance to gauge the odds as the character would have.

exactly, and there are plenty of cases where that is not a specific number

 

[pointofyou]

exactly, and there are plenty of cases where that is not a specific number

At least in D&D 5e I think the vast majority of the time there is in fact a specific number. That doesn't mean it always makes sense to reveal it.

 

[mamba]

At least in D&D 5e I think the vast majority of the time there is in fact a specific number. That doesn't mean it always makes sense to reveal it.

that is what I meant, there obviously is one number to check against, but it is not always a number the characters would know with exact precision (and depending on what they missed, they might be completely off)

 

[tetrasodium]

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.

I think that it's important where the rules are sparse. It's not enough to have sparse rules for something like dungeon/hex crawl survival related challenges if the adventuring gear from old editions that had those rules is still present to solve without the carry capacity budgets of those editions. Shadowdark can have a lot of that list because it's dangerous and PCs operate with a fairly tight carry capacity limit

 

[tetrasodium]

Most of the things you have listed in your bullet points wouldn't affect the DC of a climb. They seem more about separate ability checks that would be needed to notice traps or guards or what have you. Those would not be part of a check made to climb a wall.

I believe that's for the DM to decide just as the DC is for the DM to decide. It's also a simple example, guards shooting at you through matriculations while your fingers are going numb or losing strength due to a contact toxin seem like elements that very much would impact the difficulty of a climb.

No, it's not. It's advocating for taking the information that the characters have and then translating that information into the language of the game for the player.

I mean, so many things in D&D and RPGs in general involve number scores. Numbers are a core part of the gameplay... they're everywhere. This idea that they simply fade into the background unless a DC is shared, and then all of a sudden it's like Neo seeing the Matrix... it doesn't seem like a legitimate concern.

It seems to me, more about withholding information in some sense of making things difficult. That the DC of the ability check isn't a sufficient challenge for the character or player... we have to add some uncertainty on the player side to make things harder.

"the wall is 50 feet tall & slick with goop" is the language of the game, "climbing the wall would be DC xx" is a mechanical target. The two are not the same

It also enables GMs to fudge, either for or against the players. It allows the GM to use gotcha tactics.

That's not a can of worms you want to open without subjecting the PCs to the sort of narrative compels seen in many more narrative games. Until then, stop blaming the GM.

Far better to eliminate all that and share the DC and play the game and keep things moving rather than trying to artificially pump up what's a minor challenge.

The act of players taking actions "keeps things moving".

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I simply don't feel a good description is a worse way to do that. YMMV.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

You're welcome to feel that way. I'd rather just see what my PC sees and make a judgment based on what they know. YMMV.

 

[pemerton]

If we hide DCs, why not hide damage tallies taken and delivered?

And why not hide PC level, ability and skill numbers. Like, my sheet shouldn't say 18 STR, +6 to hit, +6 STR (Athletics). It should say "really strong person whose good at muscly stuff and sword-fighting". And then when I declare actions, the GM just does all the maths behind their screen.