DMs block player action all the time--it is part of their job, to create challenges for the players. Failure is part of the game.
I tend to think of Blocking as being when a DM denies player action without any use of rules. So no… I don’t generally think of it as part of their job. Not if the actions declared are reasonable.
Have you read any of my posts in this thread? I feel like you are jumping mid-way into the discussion...
I've already said (for like the tenth time or so...) that if the DM did not use a game system to determine whether or not the kobold gave in to the interrogation, it is railroading. AD&D has morale checks and reaction rolls for a reason and this is one case were they should have been used.
The problem comes more when after giving in to the interrogation, the kobold has nothing useful to tell the PCs. THAT is entirely a DM call. You asked: And how is what the kobold knows determined?
My reply was the DM decides. They can do it due to world-building considerations, random roll, or whatever. There is no game system to determine what a captive actually knows... that is the DM's call to determine, in whatever manner they wish.
Yet your response to this was bringing up game mechanics for giving in to interrogation--different things.
So, I know there are a lot of posts here, but really, I am getting tired of repeating myself.
Then don’t repeat yourself.
Differentiating the success of the interrogation and what the kobold knows doesn’t really matter. If the DM decides that the kobold can share literally nothing, that’s crappy DMing.
Well, that is your imagination then I guess?
In AD&D kobolds are average (low) intelligence and lawful evil alignment. Tough could be check via morale rules, easily enough. Loyal? DM call. They are lawful evil. A reaction roll might work, however, to cover this, if the kobold is favorable to the PCs and will flip on their own. Stupid? average to low intelligence covers a range of 5-10, so they might be pretty dumb. Of course, they might just be a lowly foot soldier in the masses who does what its told and doesn't ask questions--sort of like the strong ruling the weak in their society.
None of that explains their inability to give even the most basic information. Low-intelligence doesn’t mean borderline catatonic. Basic details and directions and other observable things shouldn’t be beyond a kobold’s ability to relay.
And saying “DM’s call” reinforces what I’m saying. If the DM’s call is to go with the option that blocks the players, then the DM is choosing to block the players.
IIRC, the kobold was played by the DM as non-sensical. So, not claiming to just "not know", but basically talking nonsense. There are a number of reasons why a DM might have a captive act in this fashion. I've gone over it before, not doing it again.
It was made clear that the DM made the call simply to not give the players any information. That’a why
@pemerton and his fellows left the game and started another.
Well, crappy to you then. Not crappy to me. Glad we covered that.
Right, I’ve stated my opinion and I’ve explained why I feel that way. I’ve explained why I think it’s crappy.
I can’t tell why you think it’s not… other than that there are many games where the role of the DM includes being able to make these kinds of calls.
Why is it not crappy?
It isn't clearly a case of anything. You weren't there, I wasn't there, and the only person who was only knows their side of the situation. They don't know what the DM was or wasn't thinking, nor do they truly know what the other players were thinking. Some of those players might have just gone along with a primary "leader" of their side of it.
No, it’s clear from the example that was provided.
I think we still would, because even if the DM used a system, the DM also getting to decide what level of knowledge the captive has is still an issue... why, I have no idea... but it is.
Because it’s poor play.
If you roll poorly you get nothing at all. Not just no information, but not even the useless kind.
What? That may or may not be true. I often share a basic amount of information even when players may fail a roll, depending on the circumstances.
Like in the case of the kobold, I’d offer tiers of information based on the outcome of the roll.
You seem to think that the morale check to withstand the interrogation should serve two purposes:
1) determine it the kobold talks
2) determine what the kobold has to tell
Not exactly. The two things may be connected, sure… I’d be fine with that. But they can also have different means of resolution. Let’s say an Interrogation check to see if the kobold talks and then a morale check (or saving throw, or similar) to see what they share.
What I’m against, pretty clearly, is a DM just shooting down the players with no use of resolution mechanics and no real justification for it.
I see those as two separate things, the second being in the hands of the DM to decide. I don't consider that railroading.
Now, if the DM just decides "the kobold isn't talking" or "
I'll have him talk but give them false intel" without using the morale system or something akin to it, that is railroading. Of course, it is also
railroading if the DM just decides without using the system to have the kobold spill everything. It's just in the second case, it favors the PCs so it is ok and makes sense.
No it’s not railroading to give the players what they’re looking for. I mean… it’s a kobold. A DM may decide there’s no risk of failure or nothing interesting that would happen on failure and have the kobold spill the beans.
Equating a DM unilaterally blocking player ideas with a DM unilaterally allowing player ideas is a pretty big mistake.
They do, to a point. They captured the kobold (yeh!), they made him talk (yeh!), they got nothing useful (aww...).
What they get, what information the kobold knows, is not in their ability to steer. It belongs to the DM.
Yes, I get that you think so and that there may even be instances of written rules that support this.
That doesn’t mean it’s not crap design!
Hard disagree. Happy and can we drop this point? DMs IME (like, forever...) have always determined things for a scene, but those determinations are not mechanics, so I'm good with that.
Well, no… DMs have not always decided everything about a scene. Some versions of D&D have well designed rules or at least functional rules about things like reactions and distances and surprise. Not all versions of D&D just leave all of that up to the DM.
And for me that means this was never a planned encounter or challenge. Even on the fly I will draw a quick map to give players reference--they like that.
Yes… this is why I said “on the fly”.
Great, but do you understand all those different options are just different "allies"? Presenting them with more options doesn't change the fact that they have to choose ONE of your prescribed options.
Well, no, they could certainly come up with something of their own. All I’m saying is that I would not offer only one possible option.
Anyway, that wasn't what we were presented with in this situation. There are all sorts of ways this encounter/challenge could play out, but again it comes down to what is the intent of it?
Yes. For you, if the encounter was “planned” then it should happen no matter what… is that right?
Challenge A) players are spotted, can you escape before a fight happens!?
Challenge B) the killers have you cornered in an alley way. there is a door, but it's locked. can you get through the door to escape or will you have to fight it out tooth and nail with the killers?
If the challenge is the chase, sure. If the challenge is the fight, you set it up that way. In the original post of it, this just seemed like the DM setting up the scene for a fight. Not railroading at all to me, that is just the encounter.
I think we have different ideas of what constitutes a railroad. I find set encounters like that to be pretty much definitional to them. There may be some exceptions… but anytime the situation is “this is going to happen no matter what” we’re moving into railroad territory.
Scene setting for an encounter, not railroading. How will the players handle the fight is the challenge. With they manage to get through the door? Will they be captured? Will they triumph? These possibilities and many others are why this scene was established--and what the PCs do in it is their agency in the game. No railroading IMO.
What if they don’t want to fight?
Forcing specific encounters or specific ways in which an encounter must be handled… seems pretty railroady to me.
Well, I assumed a roll to pick the lock or a roll to break it down if the players choose that. I don't think the original scene said those were never options. Again... (sorry, this is really annoying repeating myself) as I said upthread if the DM pulled 1) the DC is 100, good luck picking it or breaking through; 2) it is admantine has AC 50 and 10000 hp, good luck destroying it; and so on. THOSE are sort of bad DM moves to make the tooth and nail fight happen or the PCs surrender if things go badly UNLESS the intent of the scene is for the PCs to be captured and moved to the next part of the adventure; however, that being the case, yeah, no door as it's dumb to have it as set dressing.
Now, you have normal DCs for checks, AC and HP for the door, etc. and the PCs fail in those avenues... oh well.
Yes, I agree. I think such details were left out of the example because they were not present. Otherwise, they’d have been mentioned.
Right, which is what every other DM does IME. Make it random (you have d4+1 rounds for example), just say it (you think you'll have maybe three rounds), or tell thems the distance (they are 150 feet away and closing fast!) and let the normal movement rules play out.
No, that wasn't it at all. I've never failed to realize blocking mechanics is an issue. It was never the issue to begin with. What information the kobold conveyed (or failed to in this case) was the issue.
Well, you’ve introduced blocking mechanics to the discussion rather than simply blocking.
To me, the DM deciding that the kobold knows nothing is an example of blocking. Whether a mechanic is involved or not doesn’t really matter.
In fact, mechanics would be better because I would expect success of some sort is at least possible there.
In other cases it is an issue of what is the intent of the scene.
Is it? In each of these points you made below I quickly and easily countered with one that "makes sense".
Yeah, this is my point… many situations have multiple possible things that make sense.
So when faced with all these possibilities, a DM chooses one that blocks the players… that certainly says something about that DM, I’d say.
