3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Belen]

In other words, a PC with a climb bonus of +15 knows that, if he takes his time, he can climb up most brick walls without issue. In many cases, he should be able to look at a given wall and decide, based on his experiences, whether or not he's got a chance to make it up the wall. Arbitrarily changing DCs, among other things, means that the player can no longer act and react to the world based on his character's experience of the game world.

No this is just wrong. A player with a +15 climb has a pretty good idea that he can climb most brick walls without issue. The player does not know for sure. No one can know for sure. If a wall is not stable, a simple climb check will not tell them that it is unstable. Maybe if that player also had a good spot bonus and knowledge (architure and engineering) he would be able to really see that the wall had problems, but the "climb skill" just means that you're good a climbing, it does not make you the rocket scientist of walls and surfaces everywhere.

 

[Belen]

The point is almost every type of modifier can be seen by the player.

Why? What gives a player the ability to see modifiers? What if you're climbing a wall with slippery mold in the cracks? I'd give the player a chance to spot the mold, but a climb score will not tell them that it exists.

But there should be a reason for it. So, a player can say "Alright, I look at the wall, does it look harder to climb that usual? Yes...hmm..maybe I won't try." Either that or "I failed even though I made it? What happen that made it harder?"

Agreed. There should be a reason for it, but that reason does not have to be transparent to the players. Since when do players get to evaluate every challenge by the numbers to see if they will attempt it?

I find it funny in 3e. A lot of the players who know the DCs will not even try to do things. That is sad.

 

[Hussar]

No this is just wrong. A player with a +15 climb has a pretty good idea that he can climb most brick walls without issue. The player does not know for sure. No one can know for sure. If a wall is not stable, a simple climb check will not tell them that it is unstable. Maybe if that player also had a good spot bonus and knowledge (architure and engineering) he would be able to really see that the wall had problems, but the "climb skill" just means that you're good a climbing, it does not make you the rocket scientist of walls and surfaces everywhere.

Ok, no, that's just wrong. If I've spent 10 or 12 ranks in a skill, that means I've probably got at least a little bit of experience doing it. A climb of +15 most certainly should tell the climber that a wall is more difficult to climb than would normally be the case. Simple experience should be able to tell him that.

Player: "Hrm, I've climbed walls exactly like this one a dozen times, but I can't climb this one. I guess I should ignore the crumbling masonry under my fingertips and oozy slimy stuff that my feet keep slipping on."



I'm sorry, but if you have that many ranks in a skill, you likely have a pretty good idea on what that skill is used for. In the same way an experienced rock climber can judge a rockface from the bottom, a character with a very high climb score should be able to tell right off that something isn't right.

As a player, you want the rules to be final arbiter. It grants the player power and control over the game. The problem is that this attitude leads to an adversarial relationship between player and DM and causes arguments over the rules. Let's face it, the rules are fairly vague and sometimes a decision has to be made. A player and a DM can interpret things differently and then cause massive problems, unless the player accepts the DM as arbiter.

Again I strongly disagree with this. I don't want the rules to be the final arbiter since that's just silly. Rules can't arbitrate. The adversarial role between players and DM's is cause more by ad hoc rulings than by following the rules. If a rule exists that works, the player has every right to expect that rule to be followed. If no rule exists, then, fine, the DM steps in. To say this has become more of a problem is just silly. I think the numerous stories in this thread alone, never mind the massive number of "My DM is a poopy head" threads out there shows that there are a shockingly large number of piss poor DM's.

On a side note, there is no problem with a DM being final ARBITER. Remember, an arbiter only steps in when there are conflicts. If no conflict exists, then there is no need for an arbiter at all. Changing rules simply because the DM thinks that something is "stupid" is not a conflict. It's a powertripping DM who cannot be bothered to figure out how the rules work in the first place.

It's very interesting to me. I got called a meta-gamer in this thread recently for advocating using a skill precisely as written, without any monkey business, to make a wad of cash for the players or for NPC's because of the house rules of a DM. Yet, we have a DM dropping easter eggs for his PC's, despite the fact that that's blatant meta-gaming, and he's being applauded. I'm sorry, but if you are dropping tailor made magic items in your adventures for your PC's, that's about as meta-gaming as you can get. The entire reason for the existence of the item is to provide for the PC's.

Why is meta-gaming for a player a bad thing but perfectly acceptable in a DM?

 

[Hussar]

*snip*
I find it funny in 3e. A lot of the players who know the DCs will not even try to do things. That is sad.

What, it's sad that a person looks at something, says to himself, "Gee, there's no way I could do that because it's way beyond my skill."? Isn't that realistic? If someone is a novice rockclimber and is faced with a sheer cliff face 200 meters tall, doesn't it make sense that he's not going to try?

Or is it better that the PC's try things that are completely impossible, fail and give the DM something to giggle about? That's a little different from the position taken on the intimidating Gnome. Some DM's would flat out rule that he has no chance, regardless of the rules. If I'm playing with that kind of DM, why would I bother to find out the DC since it won't matter in the end anyway?

 

[Belen]

I'm sorry, but if you have that many ranks in a skill, you likely have a pretty good idea on what that skill is used for. In the same way an experienced rock climber can judge a rockface from the bottom, a character with a very high climb score should be able to tell right off that something isn't right.

An experienced rock climber cannot sit at the bottom of a cliff and judge every pitfall or danger that exists on that cliff. Neither can a PC do that just because they are good at climbing.

Why is meta-gaming for a player a bad thing but perfectly acceptable in a DM?

I want some of what you're smoking. You realize that "meta-game" is something that is required in a DM, right?

 

[Belen]

What, it's sad that a person looks at something, says to himself, "Gee, there's no way I could do that because it's way beyond my skill."? Isn't that realistic? If someone is a novice rockclimber and is faced with a sheer cliff face 200 meters tall, doesn't it make sense that he's not going to try?

Or is it better that the PC's try things that are completely impossible, fail and give the DM something to giggle about? That's a little different from the position taken on the intimidating Gnome. Some DM's would flat out rule that he has no chance, regardless of the rules. If I'm playing with that kind of DM, why would I bother to find out the DC since it won't matter in the end anyway?

Ah...you have never watched a player calculate the DCs and determine that they only have a 10% chance of succeeding, so why bother? I had one guy who cranked the numbers with every challenge and only made an attempt with a 50% chance of success.

He'd even use a tool to calculate CR (based on his limited knowledge of the creature) and would not participate in a fight unless he had a good chance of winning.

I find those attitudes pathetic.

 

[Raven Crowking]

No problem there, but I'll again point out that "ruling to restore a certain feeling of gameplay" can very, very easily silde into "ruling to restore how I feel the game should be". There's a fine line, and it takes a good GM to walk that line. If successful, the results can be marvelous. But I've seen many, many disasterous games where the GM tried to do just this and failed miserably.

I would argue that, not only is there not a problem with "ruling to [make the game] feel how I feel the game should be," but that this is by necessity the operating procedure of every DM out there. Even following the RAW religiously is ruling to make the game feel how you feel it should be. When players make characters, they are making that character to make the game feel the way they feel the game should be.

Why "restore a certain feeling of gameplay" if it isn't how you "feel the game should be"?

There isn't a fine line here; there is no line at all.

The only questions are, are you the kind of person who can pull off making the game feel how you feel it should be?, and, are other people interested in the same sort of feel?


RC

 

[jasper]

Jackelope….But the player has seen Casino and Goodfellas and he knows not to judge someone based on their size, because there's a very good possibility that the shrimp is a psychopath who will pop your eyeball out in a vice given half a chance. Ohh goody the old, I saw on Tv, so my pc must be able to do to. Works in your intimidate example but what if player been watching Power Rangers or Chinese Hong Kong Fu Saturday karate movies?

Shaman ,,,Second, too many rules is cumbersome. Some folks have argued that it "only take a minute" to look up a rule and apply it. You need to add. “per book in play” after minute there.

Patryn you talking out both sides of your keyboard. Yes the dm can change the dc for the wall for some of those reasons especially if protecting the lab. But just because your pc with +15 climb knows he can climb a normal brick wall (and may notice the yummy slime mold on it) he does not know Andy Alchemist wall is any but a normal wall until he starts up it. So then you get players (not all) who say “you said was a normal wall! Whine!”. Dm “I said appeared to be a normal wall.” Then KODT “surprise” Stirp the bad players zero on to key words Appears, Maybe etc.

“Again, not all changes are arbitrary, nor do the characters necessarily know everything that is going on at the moment.” Quoted for truth. And this statement all gamers need to learn and know my heart.

 

[Hussar]

Ah...you have never watched a player calculate the DCs and determine that they only have a 10% chance of succeeding, so why bother? I had one guy who cranked the numbers with every challenge and only made an attempt with a 50% chance of success.

He'd even use a tool to calculate CR (based on his limited knowledge of the creature) and would not participate in a fight unless he had a good chance of winning.

I find those attitudes pathetic.

Ok, now that's fair enough. Although I would hardly say that that's indicative of players in general any more than some of the stories here are indicative of DM's in general. You already called shenanigans on someone for saying that the majority of DM's are bad, so you don't get to say that these examples are prevalent in players out there. They most certainly haven't been in the games I've played.

Why is the DM required to meta game? Well, of course, to a certain extent that's true. The DM should ensure that challenges are not too difficult or too easy in the campaign and things like that. That's true. But, this is beyond the pale though. Dropping treasure tailor made for your PC's is extremely blatant metagaming. There are limits.

As far as the rock climber being able to see every pitfall, that's true. He cannot. However, he can look at a rockface and say, "Hrm, looks like a 3.9, I should be able to do that. When he can't and slides back down 10 feet up, it's pretty natural that he's going to think about why. If his feet slipped on moss, then, he doesn't really need a spot check to notice that. If the DC of a challenge is much higher than it appears to the PC, then a skilled PC should have a pretty decent chance to guess why. Or at least have an idea. If I'm an experienced hunter and I'm in a forest in early fall, I don't think it's a stretch to think that I should be able to hunt and get something. If I hunt, and fail, even though I should have succeeded, I should at least know that something is up.

 

[Belen]

As far as the rock climber being able to see every pitfall, that's true. He cannot. However, he can look at a rockface and say, "Hrm, looks like a 3.9, I should be able to do that. When he can't and slides back down 10 feet up, it's pretty natural that he's going to think about why. If his feet slipped on moss, then, he doesn't really need a spot check to notice that. If the DC of a challenge is much higher than it appears to the PC, then a skilled PC should have a pretty decent chance to guess why. Or at least have an idea. If I'm an experienced hunter and I'm in a forest in early fall, I don't think it's a stretch to think that I should be able to hunt and get something. If I hunt, and fail, even though I should have succeeded, I should at least know that something is up.

Now I agree with this one. If the PC tries and fails, then the character should have a good idea of why he failed. The implication upthread was that the PC should know the pitfalls before the attempt, which I think is unreasonable. Some pitfalls, like it rained recently etc, are detectable early, true, but not all DCs or pitfalls can be determined before making an attempt.