D&D 5E Escaping from (rope) bonds... What is your ruling?

[tetrasodium]

That's fine, but I still say skip (by way of narration) to the part where the PCs have agency.

"Six weeks ago, you woke in Lord Terrible's dungeons, and despite all your efforts you have not been able to escape. For the first time since your imprisonment, Lord Terrible has come to oversee your torture himself." And then play, or whatever. There is no need to play out those 6 weeks. If the PCs have no agency, they aren't relevant to play.

What if "the part where the PCs have agency" is while they are still tied up? Sometimes "exercising agency" involves recognizing the wall and admitting that you've got nothing and as a group are choosing to wait for some future point in time when there is a change to the scenario where they know X Y & Z but don't feel like they can see a way over/around Z because of an assumed P & Q.

Maybe that admission leads to understanding that P & Q are not as solid as assumed. Maybe it leads to a future point in time where X Y or Z is changed in some way & the PCs now have new options. Through an admission like that the GM knows why the players "feel" they lack the ability to exercise their agency and reveals any faulty assumptions held by either side of the GM-screen so they can be clarified.

 

[CleverNickName]

No, because dexterity is far over-used (and strength is far under-used) in my opinion. I usually won't allow players to defeat strength requirements by substituting dexterity.

My players will beg to use dexterity for everything. Nature checks "because they're a really quick thinker," Constitution saves "because they pulled the snake fangs out really quick before it could inject it's venom," ugh. It's a problem.

EDIT: That said, if they're proficient with Sleight of Hand, I might allow them to make a Strength (Sleight of Hand) check. So I vote #4, with that caveat.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Arugula!

fluggaenkoecchicebolsen?​

 

[ezo]

I guess somewhere along the line I decided I did not want to model the world and the laws of physics anymore, and would rather model the genre I was aiming for. And in the action adventure genre, rope bonds are at worst a inconvenience and usually act simply to make a clock (the room is on fire, or you have been thrown overboard) more exciting.

Sure, honestly it very rarely comes up... IME it is more about the PCs tying up someone and I have to decide if that creature can escape.

As for the rope bindings, I'm not sure what I'd set the DC - I'm thinking 21, so the average person wouldn't have a chance (you'd need either proficiency or natural talent). Possibly maybe setting it lower but require you have proficiency to make an attempt to break/cut/slip/untie your way out.

I want it to be something in the heroic range but not having to have to get into making sure prisoners are hogtied to keep from getting free, shutting down scenarios where the PCs are captured because they can escape far too easily. It should feel like an accomplishment, not playing yatzee with skill checks until you get the number you want.

Agreed. Ultimately I would just go with DC 18-20, likely 20. I don't my Joe Average having a 5% chance, and gives PCs with skill a good chance. A higher-level PC with expertise, however, should routinely be able to escape, with little chance of failure. At a +12 or better bonus, maybe even DC 15 + Intelligence modifer would be better?

I think that is probably what I'll do instead of the ruling in Xanathar's. Given the bonuses PCs will have most of the time (+0 to +11), I think the average escape chances work reasonably well.

 

[Reynard]

What if "the part where the PCs have agency" is while they are still tied up?

If they have actual agency, then let them have agency.

Sometimes "exercising agency" involves recognizing the wall and admitting that you've got nothing and as a group are choosing to wait for some future point in time when there is a change to the scenario where they know X Y & Z but don't feel like they can see a way over/around Z because of an assumed P & Q.

Right, so once they choose to wait, skip to the next point of agency where circumstances change.

Maybe that admission leads to understanding that P & Q are not as solid as assumed. Maybe it leads to a future point in time where X Y or Z is changed in some way & the PCs now have new options. Through an admission like that the GM knows why the players "feel" they lack the ability to exercise their agency and reveals any faulty assumptions held by either side of the GM-screen so they can be clarified.

If the GM is forcing the PCs to pixelbitch or play "GM may I" then you have a problem right there. I don't think there is much to be gained from telling the PCs they are tied up and it is impossible to get out, then having them try every iteration of "what if I..." until they finally tire of it.

Remember this is all predicated on the notion that some posters said it should be impossible to get out of the ropes. If that is true (and I don't think it should ever be true, but that's a different issue) then you shouldn't let the players spend a bunch of time and real world energy just getting frustrated. Move on.

 

[ezo]

I’d use the safe word we established before beginning the session.

Arugula!

fluggaenkoecchicebolsen?​

So, let's please stop this before it gets any worse. I posted this for a reason:

ATTENTION: Ok folks, this is an "all-age" web site, so let's keep it "clean" please and thank you!

Thank you.

 

[CleverNickName]

If that is true (and I don't think it should ever be true, but that's a different issue) then you shouldn't let the players spend a bunch of time and real world energy just getting frustrated. Move on.

I mostly agree, unless I'm trying to set up the scene and build some tension in the story. There are moments in my adventures that should feel tense and frustrating, and "struggling to escape rope bonds before the bomb (or whatever) goes off" is a classic scene.

 

[Reynard]

I mostly agree, unless I'm trying to set up the scene and build some tension in the story. There are moments in my adventures that should feel tense and frustrating.

That's great when it works, but in my experience it is almost never successfully frustrating or tense, but unfun.

 

[Stormonu]

That's fine, but I still say skip (by way of narration) to the part where the PCs have agency.

"Six weeks ago, you woke in Lord Terrible's dungeons, and despite all your efforts you have not been able to escape. For the first time since your imprisonment, Lord Terrible has come to oversee your torture himself." And then play, or whatever. There is no need to play out those 6 weeks. If the PCs have no agency, they aren't relevant to play.

I agree on the skip, so long as, say, the player doesn't interject and ask if they can attempt to escape before those 6 weeks pass (which I imagine most would at least try). If they're just willing to roll forward with the time frame, go for it.

 

[CleverNickName]

That's great when it works, but in my experience it is almost never successfully frustrating or tense, but unfun.

Practice makes perfect.