D&D 5E (2014) DM imposed restrictions to the game (+)

[SkidAce]

Tell me, if you presented a puzzle to your players and the player playing the 6 Int barbarian solved it, would you not allow him to because his character isn't smart enough?

I would let them solve it. Considered a "one off" insight if you will.

If they consistently played a genius, I'd ask them about it. "Why do you play a low Int character so smartly?"*

If they kept on doing it, then I would accept the way they want to play the character and carry on. (of course Int based rolls would still have a penalty, I guess thats the part they would be considering as low Int.)

 

[AlViking]

So is there any point where such things are given, no roll? The wizard who studied giant history in his backstory automatically knows the order of the ordning and gets that hint for free? The rogue who is looking for a loose brick in the fireplace just finds it with no roll? The merchant just goes, "you know, that's a good point. I didn't think of that!" And does it? Or do we create scenarios where even if the player has the right solution, they fail the task because the dice go poor

The issue with things like searching for that loose brick for me is that if I know the DM or they know me, the DM likely has typical patterns. If you describe how you search in the right way you can get automatic success. Meanwhile I also don't value the equivalent of pixel-bitching in game, for me it's not interesting or fun to describe how I'm pulling every drawer out of the desk and flipping them over, checking dimensions or similar. It also tends to be a 1-person task too often with one person going into excruciating detail while everyone sits around checking their phones. That, and it's a player challenge at that point, not a character challenge. I want investments in non-combat abilities to matter.

There are times when people come up with clever solutions that bypass the trap or they come up with some way of solving the issue without a roll and that's fun as well. It's just typically going to be the exception.

(I'm reminded of a real scenario I played in where the players started in an eleven treetop village. Despite the fact we were in a village where many of us grew up and were under no pressure or time constraints, made us roll climb checks to climb the rope ladders into people's houses and shops. I guess he wanted people who didn't dump strength to feel it wasn't a waste while the others kept falling off 10 ft rope ladders...)

Yeah, checks to be limited to cases where there's uncertainty. The only case I can see where climbing in a village in the trees would make sense is if there's some outside influence (i.e. climbing during a hurricane) but even then I'd allow options, even if it's tying the wizard to the barbarian's back.

 

[Remathilis]

Yes. I decided my PC was a coward and runs and hides when things get rough. I don't need the DM forcing Fear Checks every time we encounter something slightly scary, which then results in me rolling what my character does (runs, freezes, goes mad, etc) as the result of the fear.

(Yes I'm singling out Ravenloft fear checks here).

I'm quoting myself.

So what would I do for a Fear Check? This:

DM: the corpse springs to life and begins to rise. Roll a Wisdom save.
Me: ugh. 8.
DM: you are startled and have the frightened condition for this turn. (Disadvantage in sight of ghoul, can't go near it). What do you do?
Me: I will back away from it and use my action to cast sanctuary, praying to the Gods it will leave me alone...

Vs
DM: the corpse springs to life and begins to rise. Roll a Wisdom save.
Me: ugh. 8.
DM: you are frightened. Roll a d6.
Me' ok, 4?
DM: you stumble backwards and fall, dropping your sword and the potion of healing you were going to administer. The vial shatters on the ground. You are prone and the ghoul has Advantage on all its attacks....

The first is the 5e fear rules. It's one turn where my actions are constricted but not negated. I could run, cast a defensive spell, flail wildly when it approaches, but I get that call.

The second is based on the 2e Domains of Dread fear results. I'm prone, disarmed, and lost a potion to the check. Further, I'm unable to act at all due to this. The dice have taken my reaction to the fear from me, and how I got to play it was decided for me. Further, the effects are far more severe, as I'm effectively losing a turn, I'm easier to hit, and I'm without a weapon AND down a potion.

If You think the complaint is just the first allowed me to take a defensive action rather then suffer multiple disabling conditions, you're partially right (I did pick one of the worst options on purpose) but the fact the first still gives me agency in showing my fear while the latter does it for me is the main issue. One trusts me to be afraid, the latter tells me how I'm acting while afraid.

 

[Remathilis]

The issue with things like searching for that loose brick for me is that if I know the DM or they know me, the DM likely has typical patterns. If you describe how you search in the right way you can get automatic success. Meanwhile I also don't value the equivalent of pixel-bitching in game, for me it's not interesting or fun to describe how I'm pulling every drawer out of the desk and flipping them over, checking dimensions or similar. It also tends to be a 1-person task too often with one person going into excruciating detail while everyone sits around checking their phones. That, and it's a player challenge at that point, not a character challenge. I want investments in non-combat abilities to matter.

There are times when people come up with clever solutions that bypass the trap or they come up with some way of solving the issue without a roll and that's fun as well. It's just typically going to be the exception

It's not a perfect example. But I was trying to project those times the player manages to figure out secret with rolling. The equivalent of saying "well, you were right, it was a lose brick, but you didn't roll high enough to actually discover it, so you can't find the brick regardless."

The trap example is probably better.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Yes. I decided my PC was a coward and runs and hides when things get rough. I don't need the DM forcing Fear Checks every time we encounter something slightly scary, which then results in me rolling what my character does (runs, freezes, goes mad, etc) as the result of the fear.

Sure, but not everyone at a table plays that way. The die is the great equaliser and why I prefer it.

 

[Remathilis]

Sure, but not everyone at a table plays that way. The die is the great equaliser and why I prefer it.

Yup. Every character gets to react the same.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm quoting myself.

So what would I do for a Fear Check? This:

DM: the corpse springs to life and begins to rise. Roll a Wisdom save.
Me: ugh. 8.
DM: you are startled and have the frightened condition for this turn. (Disadvantage in sight of ghoul, can't go near it). What do you do?
Me: I will back away from it and use my action to cast sanctuary, praying to the Gods it will leave me alone...

Vs
DM: the corpse springs to life and begins to rise. Roll a Wisdom save.
Me: ugh. 8.
DM: you are frightened. Roll a d6.
Me' ok, 4?
DM: you stumble backwards and fall, dropping your sword and the potion of healing you were going to administer. The vial shatters on the ground. You are prone and the ghoul has Advantage on all its attacks....

The first is the 5e fear rules. It's one turn where my actions are constricted but not negated. I could run, cast a defensive spell, flail wildly when it approaches, but I get that call.

The second is based on the 2e Domains of Dread fear results. I'm prone, disarmed, and lost a potion to the check. Further, I'm unable to act at all due to this. The dice have taken my reaction to the fear from me, and how I got to play it was decided for me. Further, the effects are far more severe, as I'm effectively losing a turn, I'm easier to hit, and I'm without a weapon AND down a potion.

If You think the complaint is just the first allowed me to take a defensive action rather then suffer multiple disabling conditions, you're partially right (I did pick one of the worst options on purpose) but the fact the first still gives me agency in showing my fear while the latter does it for me is the main issue. One trusts me to be afraid, the latter tells me how I'm acting while afraid.

Okay.

What happens, then, if it happens to be true that most people are not good at, or even genuinely incapable of or unwilling to be, consistently and appropriately expressing that fear?

Because this argument you've made looks perfectly identical to a defense of Prestige Classes, as implemented in 3.x: it's perfectly fine to have pure roleplay restrictions on powerful prestige class abilities, and refusing to design that way means you don't trust players to roleplay sincerely and appropriately. But we went through that era...and we saw that that was exactly what happened. Some people abided by the rules, sure. The vast majority did not, and that is the reason why folks are so allergic to PrC concepts today. It isn't because the concept is inherently bad. It's that we had rules that trusted players to consistently abide by thematic and behavior limitations...and they demonstrably did not, far more often than they abided by them.

So, where does that put the status of these "just trust people to do it right" arguments? We've legit actually seen that break down so badly that the community at large won't even consider a mechanical structure that relied on it in the past, even in 5e, the edition supposedly all about doing exactly that thing.

As far as I'm concerned, this at bare minimum shows that alone, the "just trust people to do it" argument doesn't hold water. You need more than that to land the objection. That doesn't mean it's just flat wrong all the time, I grant that it still has some force. But it can't shoulder the burden (of proof?) on its own. Whether or not it makes sense logically, it breaks down in actual practice, historically demonstrated.

Or, since I know folks are so eager to trot this out against anything they dislike: "just trust the player to do it right" is a white-room argument. It doesn't reliably hold up in actual, observed practice. Special cases and minority proportions, sure, but not the general case.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Okay.

What happens, then, if it happens to be true that most people are not good at, or even genuinely incapable of or unwilling to be, consistently and appropriately expressing that fear?

Because this argument you've made looks perfectly identical to a defense of Prestige Classes, as implemented in 3.x: it's perfectly fine to have pure roleplay restrictions on powerful prestige class abilities, and refusing to design that way means you don't trust players to roleplay sincerely and appropriately. But we went through that era...and we saw that that was exactly what happened. Some people abided by the rules, sure. The vast majority did not, and that is the reason why folks are so allergic to PrC concepts today. It isn't because the concept is inherently bad. It's that we had rules that trusted players to consistently abide by thematic and behavior limitations...and they demonstrably did not, far more often than they abided by them.

So, where does that put the status of these "just trust people to do it right" arguments? We've legit actually seen that break down so badly that the community at large won't even consider a mechanical structure that relied on it in the past, even in 5e, the edition supposedly all about doing exactly that thing.

As far as I'm concerned, this at bare minimum shows that alone, the "just trust people to do it" argument doesn't hold water. You need more than that to land the objection. That doesn't mean it's just flat wrong all the time, I grant that it still has some force. But it can't shoulder the burden (of proof?) on its own. Whether or not it makes sense logically, it breaks down in actual practice, historically demonstrated.

Or, since I know folks are so eager to trot this out against anything they dislike: "just trust the player to do it right" is a white-room argument. It doesn't reliably hold up in actual, observed practice. Special cases and minority proportions, sure, but not the general case.

Well, of course the simple answer is the hardcore proponents of that consider those simply substandard players they'd rather not play with. Its a "don't play with those people" argument.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, of course the simple answer is the hardcore proponents of that consider those simply substandard players they'd rather not play with. Its a "don't play with those people" argument.

I'll just have to hope that that's not where this goes. Because that's...an attitude I find questionable. That's probably the nicest thing I can say about it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'll just have to hope that that's not where this goes. Because that's...an attitude I find questionable. That's probably the nicest thing I can say about it.

I could be wrong, but its a possible line of view from some statements I saw.