I want my actions to matter

[Manbearcat]

I’m an expert grappler. I can size up a prospective opponent and throw a high resolution value on the danger I’m in and be correct at an extremely high rate.

I’m a relatively novice climber (compared with your average climber) with intermediate capability. I can size up a prospective boulder problem or route and throw a high resolution value on the difficulty for me personally and across climbers generally (different climbs cater to different strengths) and be correct at an extremely high rate.

This is a fair approximation for your average D&D Fighter except they should be even better situated than I even at like level 3. By mid/high level they should surpass my own ability to project by an order of magnitude.

The idea that D&D fantasy characters couldn’t accurately size up opponents/obstacles and mentally model values of danger/difficulty boggles the mind.

 

[hawkeyefan]

As DM I'm duty bound to follow where the characters lead - in this case it was into a boardroom - as it's just another curveball I have to hit. I didn't expect it to go on nearly as long as it did, though.

But if you’re duty-bound, then why’d you not go all the way? You said you held back because the idea bored you.

I mean, I get that 100%. But if I wasn’t into something the players were doing, I think it’d be better for all to say that and have a discussion and move the game in a direction that all would be happy with.

The idea of halfassing it to the point where I’d still not be happy, and the players are still jot quite getting what they want? Well whatever duty binds me to that is a duty I don’t want.

 

[Lanefan]

No I don't think that it's that simple of an answer to the subverter problem noted in that comment,a mere curve ball is something else. @bloodtide raises a reasonable point that has really grown with 5e. There is a great blog post on the Alexandrian titled abused gamer syndrome & dndshorts has a great video about toxic player types that includes one dubbed "the subverter".

My sympathies generally lie with the subverter or the saboteur - I've often found those to be the most entertaining and amusing players both to DM and to play with, in part because I just never know what to expect and in part because I like the laughter and chaos that tends to result. I don't consider them toxic until-unless their actions and-or arguments move out of character, at which point the hammer comes down.

The way 5e insulates PCs from any form of need very much empowers that type of player by freeing them from the risk of any other player pushing back when they say "let's find something else to do" in an effort to avoid or bail on the planned/ongoing adventure.

I don't follow this. If I-as-Jocasta say "Screw this, let's go down the coast instead and take up piracy for a while!", what's to stop you-as-Gloratio from saying "No, we committed to dealing with the dragons and people are looking to us to do it, so we'd best just get on with that"?

 

[Lanefan]

But if you’re duty-bound, then why’d you not go all the way? You said you held back because the idea bored you.

I mean, I get that 100%. But if I wasn’t into something the players were doing, I think it’d be better for all to say that and have a discussion and move the game in a direction that all would be happy with.

The idea of halfassing it to the point where I’d still not be happy, and the players are still jot quite getting what they want? Well whatever duty binds me to that is a duty I don’t want.

Halfassing it is still a big step up from not doing it at all.

 

[MNblockhead]

Wherever you fall on the share DC/AC/etc. numbers side of the argument, I applaud y'all's consistency. I run it both ways in my games, sometimes in the same session.

 

[MNblockhead]

Rules of the game: (i) any number of checks (Pick Locks, Stealth, Search, etc) may lie between the starting point and resolving the situation; (ii) the DCs of those checks may be <whatever>; (iii) the result of any given check may be <whatever>.

The logic of the fantasy world: whatever the GM has decided, probably in secret, that (i) yields the fiction that makes sense to them, and (ii) has been used to fill in <whatever> above.

This is not a propitious starting point for the players' moves in the game to matter.

I guess. I've run games where all players build the world together and others where a fully baked world is presented. Players have more influence in the former than they do in the later. But I'm not sure that their choices matter more. Ordering something off the menu as the chef intended a meal to be can be just as enjoyable as having it your own way. There are so many graduations between railroading and fully collaborative, open world gaming in TTRPGs that I find it difficult to draw a line in the sand. I can only say that I don't fine the extremes on either end very satisfying and am pretty flexible in being able to enjoy both styles between the extremes.

 

[tetrasodium]

I’m an expert grappler. I can size up a prospective opponent and throw a high resolution value on the danger I’m in and be correct at an extremely high rate.

I’m a relatively novice climber (compared with your average climber) with intermediate capability. I can size up a prospective boulder problem or route and throw a high resolution value on the difficulty for me personally and across climbers generally (different climbs cater to different strengths) and be correct at an extremely high rate.

This is a fair approximation for your average D&D Fighter except they should be even better situated than I even at like level 3. By mid/high level they should surpass my own ability to project by an order of magnitude.

The idea that D&D fantasy characters couldn’t accurately size up opponents/obstacles and mentally model values of danger/difficulty boggles the mind.

No 5e pc is an "expert climber" with a possible exception of those with a "climb speed" because the skill system in 5e no longer contains a "climb" skill.. using athletics to climb a hazardous surface like a 50 foot tall wall covered in slippery goop is literally "hold my beer" territory. As such e they are incapable of having the skill to judge a particular climb.

 

[tetrasodium]

My sympathies generally lie with the subverter or the saboteur - I've often found those to be the most entertaining and amusing players both to DM and to play with, in part because I just never know what to expect and in part because I like the laughter and chaos that tends to result. I don't consider them toxic until-unless their actions and-or arguments move out of character, at which point the hammer comes down.

Doing the stupid thing and saying oops is not the same as being a subverter.

I don't follow this. If I-as-Jocasta say "Screw this, let's go down the coast instead and take up piracy for a while!", what's to stop you-as-Gloratio from saying "No, we committed to dealing with the dragons and people are looking to us to do it, so we'd best just get on with that"?

Filter your example through the knowledge in that Alexandrian article, the subverter doesn't want to take up piracy either and is only willing to go along as long as it looks like they are avoiding something, that changes as soon as they find it.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Well, how does that work? Someone has to be in charge...and it has to be the DM....unless your not playing a traditional RPG.

There is in charge of the game, then there is treating the game likes its only there for your enjoyment, regardless of what pleasure the other players of the game (of which you are one) might derive from it. Your posts are indicating you are in the latter camp. What you want matters, and what others want doesn't. You dress that up as 'I am the DM, so that's okay'. Others here are telling you that it really isn't okay.

And you still have not answered my question.

So you gave the example of a normal game...rolling long. And you said the players would random do something like buy and inn or adopt a baby. Then when the DM ignores it and just keeps the "main" game rolling......you said this was wrong.

It is wrong. You have put a lot of effort into your storyline. It should not be completely ignored... that wouldn't be fair to you. It's equally not fair for you to place your storyline above what the rest of the table wants though. Running your storyline, 100% of the time, makes the game fun for you, but a drudge for everyone else.

So....why is not what the player(s) is doing wrong? Are not the players wrong for taking the game off on a tangent? Why is it ok for the players to just randomly say "Ok, we want to ignore the adventure and do some random thing"? Why is the DM the bad guy for ignoring this?

Sure...you can just let the players run wild and do whatever. And sure you can just "add" whatever random things they do to the "main" Story Plot. Like...ok....so the players randomly buy an Inn. So then the DM just randomly says ....oh look your inn just happened to be built on an old cursed dwarven burial ground with a portal to the Plane of Unlife. And you'd be fine with that.

What you are calling the players 'running wild' is them wanting to derive a little pleasure and have some agency in the game they have agreed to participate in. You overriding everything the players do so that you can advance the story you have crafted is you 'running wild', to use your terminology.

Humm.....could be my problem as my game is a hidden riddle inside and enigma in fog and pure darkness beyond all darkness leaving the poor players blind and clueless. I'm sure it's a huge shock as all thier other games are with Buddy DMs that are as transparent as transparent can be.

Your game might be a legend in your own mind and perhaps not in anyone else's. Might be why you think advancing your storyline and making your wants and needs the only focus should be the way things are at your table.

 

[mamba]

Humm.....could be my problem as my game is a hidden riddle inside and enigma in fog and pure darkness beyond all darkness leaving the poor players blind and clueless.

if this is an accurate description of your game, it needs fixing. You are basically saying that no one has a clue or likely ever will get one, all players just stumble around in the dark.

No wonder they think that their actions do not matter