Dungeon Mastering as a Fine Art

[Hussar]

Now that the drive by snark fest has past, let us return to our Vader example.

Now imagine this in actual play. Vader's player had sunk tons of table time into this plan. He had to go to Bespin and cow Lando. Then set up the ambush and capture Han and the others. All of this leads into the Big Showdown. Fantastic battle ensues between Vader and Luke.

And Vader's player quite deliberately avoids killing Luke which he likely could have done at any point.

Vader wins. Luke is on the ropes and Vader drops the big reveal. Luke's mentors have been lying to him all along. What else are they lying about. Vader makes his pitch....

And the DM ignores all of the above and Luke escapes.

Do people really feel like this is good gaming? Honestly? You would be perfectly fine with this?

You guys must have much more understanding players than I have ever met.

 

[Neonchameleon]

There are things that shouldn't be rolled for, though, right? If a player wants to steal someone's pants or talk the king into abdicating and letting him rule or create a perpetual motion machine, do you so okay, roll?

Given quite how badly D&D magic appears to mess up the laws of thermodynamics I see no inherent problems with a perpetual motion machine. Stealing someone's pants while they are wearing them? I see nothing wrong with a DC50 Sleight of Hand check and if being generous would make it about DC40. In short out of reach of an ordinary human in the real world on their best day. But high level rogues should be that good. Likewise I see nothing wrong with diplomats who are as silver tongued as the best D&D magicians are magical doing absurd things.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

cow Lando

I had to read this like five times before my head stopped being filled visions of a bizarre cow-man hybrids with cheeky grins.

For me, rolling happens only after everything is played out and an outcome is uncertain. If, during an exchange, it becomes obvious what the outcome should be, no rolling is necessary. Everyone's mileage on "role vs roll" may vary, of course, but this way, I find it keeps the absurd results to a minimum while still leaving the players with reasonable agency through roleplay.

I think this is an approach that's true for almost all DMs, but to a some severely greater or lesser degrees, and that's where some conflicts can develop.

I mean, I had a DM who was so extreme that he wanted to eliminate all social and mental skills (and all social stats, mental stats merely measuring your ability to do magic), except as background elements, and this, I felt, was really a problem because it meant that a player who wasn't super-adept socially, who wasn't great at arguing on his feat, but who could come up with plausible approaches his character could take, was basically locked out of succeeding at anything social, because he couldn't actually act it out well (even though he could describe what his PC was trying to achieve). We explained to him that he could do that, but he would be DMing for a group of zero, were that the case, which sorted that out, but he frequently attempted to suggest that unless you could RP exactly and precisely what he wanted (which was almost pixel-hunting in some cases), you couldn't even roll, let alone succeed.

I've also directly experienced other DMs who used "we only roll when it's uncertain" as an excuse to just blockblockblockblockblock player ideas and RP that they didn't like - no matter how well-RP'd or reasonable their approach was. I've seen this a few times, too, which makes me leery of strongly advocating for "roll only on last resort"-type deals.

I think it's pretty clear that, in reality, most DMs are firmly in a middle ground where they won't allow a lucky roll to do something that is completely unrealistic, but won't block rolling unless detailed RP takes place, or only allow it when they, personally, are unclear on what would happen (i.e. have no specific opinion). Plus, if the roll does take place, I think it's really bad behaviour to ignore it - it might not get the PC what the player wants, but if the PC is trying to convince the king to abdicate in his favour, a natural 20 + big skill bonuses will mean the king laughs it off and maybe even considers the PC to be witty and daring (he might even grant him one of those weird medieval court titles), and generally improves in his opinion of him, whereas a poor roll would result in said PC ending up in the stocks, or worse, the dungeons. I don't think it necessarily benefits the game to try and RP out the entire conversation, and it can actually be unfair, in that RPing everything favours people who are fast-talkers, imaginative, and think on their feet (i.e. people like me), whilst penalizing plotters and planners, even if they come up with very theoretically clever approaches to the situation, and even if - importantly - their PC is someone who has the gift of the gab, or is supposed to (say, High CHA, Diplomacy, Bluff, etc - that stuff cost the PC - it is thus important not to ignore it).

My strong experience, too, is that it is really, really easy to deal with the results of ridiculous rolls, and more fun to to that, than to just say "Nope". Sometimes you have to, of course.

As an example of when one does say "Nope, sorry " though, last night the PCs in my game were exploring the sewers of a city they didn't know well at all (none of them had been in that part of the continent), and they asked if they could make a check (I forgot what, something that would normally be appropriate) to guess exactly what was above them without actually going to the surface (they were under a part of the city they'd never been in or heard much about), and I had to say no, they couldn't get detailed information of that kind like that - a good roll could certainly tell them the general area, and maybe they could guess the trades, wealth level and so on from what was down there with them, but they couldn't just know the actual buildings, addresses and so on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Likewise I see nothing wrong with diplomats who are as silver tongued as the best D&D magicians are magical doing absurd things.

I think that, historically, this is D&D's problem in a nutshell.

Brilliant RP + really high skills + great roll = the DM can still easily go "nah".

Magic, even a fairly low-level or mid-level spell = Often, not only can the DM not go "nah", but you don't even have to make a good roll.

Hopefully 5E generally avoids this - the only way to do it is to "nerf" the hell out of certain kinds of utility spell (which is to say "give them reasonable limits and drawbacks", which is not something they have consistently had).

 

[Ahnehnois]

To me, the thing with social skills is to be clear about what they mean. That is, to focus on process, rather than outcome. Establishing Diplomacy, for example, as a measure of how eloquent and persuasive the character is makes it much clearer to adjudicate.

It's entirely possible, for example, for very attractive and charismatic people to get by in some situations, even if what they're saying is total BS. But some astute observers will conversely see right through it. On the other hand, it's also clear that other people act in their own best interest, and if you have something genuinely compelling, they may listen even if you do a pretty poor job of conveying it.

For me and those of my players who have been embedded in the science world, the distinction between the merits of one's thoughts and the ability to convey them is quite easy to understand because we see it all the time. Some people have good ideas, some people are good in front of a crowd, some have both, some neither.

I think where the rules go wrong is in focusing too much on outcomes. If I read the 3e Diplo, for example, it starts with

You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs.

This is misleading. It is possible to change the attitudes of people with Diplomacy, but that isn't really what the skill does. The skill allows you to speak well. The NPC attitude is determined by a variety of factors, of which your speech is only one.

They've buried the lead with that line about "basic" DCs. Those DCs are so basic, they're really inappropriate in just about any in-game situation.

The Bluff skill is even worse:

A successful Bluff check indicates that the target reacts as you wish, at least for a short time (usually 1 round or less) or believes something that you want it to believe. Bluff, however, is not a suggestion spell.

Gee, thanks for that. The skill at least does a good job of making the effects of circumstance somewhat more explicit, but still ultimately fails to convey the sophistication of deception. It's vague and confusing.

I had a few really cheesy Bluff-related gambits from the players in the early 3e days, before I figured out that the skill is really just telling you how well you delivered the lie, not controlling the target's mind. But again, if you read the text, they buried the lead; it suggests that Bluff is a suggestion spell, and then says that it isn't.

The DMG text on adjudicating skills is significantly better, but of course, people read the PHB first.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think that, historically, this is D&D's problem in a nutshell.

Brilliant RP + really high skills + great roll = the DM can still easily go "nah".

Magic, even a fairly low-level or mid-level spell = Often, not only can the DM not go "nah", but you don't even have to make a good roll.

I would think that the solution, inasmuch as one is needed, would be to make the second scenario more like the first.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I would think that the solution, inasmuch as one is needed, would be to make the second scenario more like the first.

Well yes, either approach is viable - it's a matter of taste, really - are you playing a game of myths and legends and fairytales (Princess Bride or LotR, say), or the grimier tale of "what really happened"? (Lankhmar, Conan, say). D&D can be either, has been either, in different editions and settings.

 

[Neonchameleon]

To me, the thing with social skills is to be clear about what they mean. That is, to focus on process, rather than outcome. Establishing Diplomacy, for example, as a measure of how eloquent and persuasive the character is makes it much clearer to adjudicate.

It's entirely possible, for example, for very attractive and charismatic people to get by in some situations, even if what they're saying is total BS. But some astute observers will conversely see right through it. On the other hand, it's also clear that other people act in their own best interest, and if you have something genuinely compelling, they may listen even if you do a pretty poor job of conveying it.

For me and those of my players who have been embedded in the science world, the distinction between the merits of one's thoughts and the ability to convey them is quite easy to understand because we see it all the time. Some people have good ideas, some people are good in front of a crowd, some have both, some neither.

I think where the rules go wrong is in focusing too much on outcomes. If I read the 3e Diplo, for example, it starts with

You can change the attitudes of others (nonplayer characters) with a successful Diplomacy check; see the Influencing NPC Attitudes sidebar, below, for basic DCs.

This is misleading. It is possible to change the attitudes of people with Diplomacy, but that isn't really what the skill does. The skill allows you to speak well. The NPC attitude is determined by a variety of factors, of which your speech is only one.

Not even close. The lede is exactly the right lede. Diplomacy isn't about how well you can speak (which is, I agree, a skill in its own right). Diplomacy is, RAW and RAI about how good you are at getting people to like you and want to bother further, and fundamentally about establishing a rapport. It's not about how well you can present how evolution actually works to a creationist. You can be as clear and accurate as you like, but unless you can establish a rapport with them they are going to dismiss what you have to say out of hand.

For the record how well you speak, especially in front of a crowd is directly covered by another skill. Perform (Oratory).

The Bluff skill is even worse:

On this we can agree.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well yes, either approach is viable - it's a matter of taste, really - are you playing a game of myths and legends and fairytales (Princess Bride or LotR, say), or the grimier tale of "what really happened"? (Lankhmar, Conan, say). D&D can be either, has been either, in different editions and settings.

The only tone that I think is really conveyed by the relative automaticity of magic is a "magic as technology" vibe that is really specific to D&D.

And, somewhat independently of textual subtleties, I think magic is best DMed the same way the social skills are: by treating the rules as a process and determining the outcome based on situation.

 

[Agamon]

I've also directly experienced other DMs who used "we only roll when it's uncertain" as an excuse to just blockblockblockblockblock player ideas and RP that they didn't like - no matter how well-RP'd or reasonable their approach was. I've seen this a few times, too, which makes me leery of strongly advocating for "roll only on last resort"-type deals.

Bad GM is going to be a bad GM, unfortunately. But it also allows for a more permissive style, too. Wanting to say yes to a cool PC idea, but then watching him make a bad unnecessary roll sucks, too.

But I get what you're saying. My current EotE GM is saying no a lot in our game, and it is frustrating. But like I say, that's an unfortunate GMing style. The game just started and he's a bit rusty after not having run a game in years, so I'll give him a couple sessions before talking to him about it.

As an example of when one does say "Nope, sorry " though, last night the PCs in my game were exploring the sewers of a city they didn't know well at all (none of them had been in that part of the continent), and they asked if they could make a check (I forgot what, something that would normally be appropriate) to guess exactly what was above them without actually going to the surface (they were under a part of the city they'd never been in or heard much about), and I had to say no, they couldn't get detailed information of that kind like that - a good roll could certainly tell them the general area, and maybe they could guess the trades, wealth level and so on from what was down there with them, but they couldn't just know the actual buildings, addresses and so on.

That's not a "no", that's a "yes, but". Sure you can probably get some sort of idea what's generally above from clues in the sewers, but to know exactly what's above you? Probably not. Note, however, as a GM, I'm unsure what level they might know, this is a good situation for a roll. There is the off chance that a discarded monogrammed item or letter is stuck to the wall that gives a good clue. There's also a chance there's just sewage.