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

[Reynard]

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.

Sure but I probably still wouldn't go through the effort of dealing with skill checks and stuff. Instead I would ask them what their escape plans were, and describe why it didn't work. This would have the benefit of giving them info they can use later (and me too, since I was probably making stuff up on the fly anyway). What I would not want to have happen is for the game to grind to a halt because I foolishly chose to capture the party. I HATE it when as a player the GM lets you spin your wheels forever, and I won't do it as a GM. That probably means I sometimes err on the side of skipping something that did not really needed skipping, but I think on balance it is a net improvement in their and my play experience.

 

[Horwath]

I voted "Yes. Other.

"A Strength check can model any attempt to lift, push, pull, or break something, to force your body through a space, or to otherwise apply brute force to a situation. The Athletics skill reflects aptitude in certain kinds of] Strength checks.

Other Strength Checks. The DM might also call fora Strength check when you try to accomplish tasks like the following:

• Break free of bonds"

Dexterity similarly allows escaping from bonds.

Strength doesn't have enough skills, so I would probably allow athletics to be added to the roll for strong characters. Acrobatics doesn't fit, though, being for larger agility movements like balancing on a tightrope or flipping through a crowd. Sleight of hand, though, is about nimble hand and finger movements and THAT would fit aid to a PC trying to escape the bonds by nimbleness and not brute force, so I'd allow that to help as well.

So Yes(Sleight of Hand) and Other(Athletics).

STR(athletics) to break the bonds.
DEX(Sl of hand) to cut or somehow compromise the bonds with implements from environment.
DEX(acrobatics) to contort out of bonds, like Mel Gibson in Lethal weapon when he dislocates his shoulder on purpose to escape from straitjacket.

 

[Maxperson]

STR(athletics) to break the bonds.
DEX(Sl of hand) to cut or somehow compromise the bonds with implements from environment.
DEX(acrobatics) to contort out of bonds, like Mel Gibson in Lethal weapon when he dislocates his shoulder on purpose to escape from straitjacket.

I also see sleight of hand working like your acrobatics portion on small scale. Wiggling fingers around to pull/push ends or move loops over/under something to get room.

And really, I'd probably do Con(acrobatic/athletics) to dislocate a shoulder and get out. That seems more like an endurance thing than an agility thing. Straight contortion to get out of a straight jacket would be dex.

 

[Stormonu]

I also see sleight of hand working like your acrobatics portion on small scale. Wiggling fingers around to pull/push ends or move loops over/under something to get room.

And really, I'd probably do Con(acrobatic/athletics) to dislocate a shoulder and get out. That seems more like an endurance thing than an agility thing. Straight contortion to get out of a straight jacket would be dex.

The latter is probably a two or three step, I would probably rule. Athletics (Con) to dislocate, then Acrobatics (Dex) to actually slip out. Maaaaybe a Con save to avoid damage relocating the shoulder afterwards?

...Or, spend a HD to dislocate, then the Acrobatics (Dex) check?

 

[DarkCrisis]

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


Thank you.

It’s okay. Scotty doesn’t know.

 

[tetrasodium]

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

This again goes back to you very strongly implying that the players are capable of succeeding by using their preferred method or that the agency players think they have is also the agency they want. The post you quoted mentions three different known scenario elements two assumptions and a presumed roadblock. All six of those were deliberately left as undefined variables to avoid getting lost in the weeds of their specifics and some of them were pretty clearly implied to be less than accurate in ways that admitting why players feel they are stuck would correct through clarification or additional details.

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

No!

Very very much no! You quoted but skipped over the important part between maybe & clarified. If all the players do is say "skip to the next point where agency or circumstances change" they are actively railroading themselves by avoiding any discussion between themselves & the GM. That discussion would reveal what everyone thinks they know & what everyone☆ is assumed to know so it can be corrected as needed.

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.

How can it pixelbitching if one or more people at the table are assuming incorrect scenario elements or are unaware of seemingly important details they are assumed to have known? Trying to frame this as a MMI scenario just to greenlight the idea that it's ok for players to avoid having a discussion like I described seems to point back to the earlier players always succeed or it's railroading tangent

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.

I don't see a conflict. Sometimes it is impossible to do a specific thing but it's possible to do many other things that could change the scenario or lead to the same result. Alice can't untie herself... so what?... can she untie Bob or someone else? Can she negotiate with the guard(s)? Can Dave do something else like turning into a small flavor of monkey that lets him untie others? Can Edith roll sideways to leverage her fire resistance while holding her rope bindings in the torch/camp fire? Can Fred do something with his razor sharp claws?

If the answer to any of those questions is yes or maybe then it doesn't matter that it's impossible for Alice to untie herself because the group is surrendering agency to self railroading if they don't even try talking out the knowns unknowns & assumptions of the situation before they immediately give up upon discovering that it's impossible for Alice to untie herself.

☆ Incorrect assumptions can go both ways. Maybe the players forgot/didn't notice something the GM thought was clear, maybe the GM overlooked a key detail in how certain abilities work or assumed certain spells were an option. Maybe a player didn't realize they could do the needful to change spells out while bound.

★spells not worth defining for discussion of a hypothetical examples stemming from a different hypothetical
ical

 

[Reynard]

I don't see a conflict. Sometimes it is impossible to do a specific thing but it's possible to do many other things that could change the scenario or lead to the same result. Alice can't untie herself... so what?... can she untie Bob or someone else? Can she negotiate with the guard(s)? Can Dave do something else like turning into a small flavor of monkey that lets him untie others? Can Edith roll sideways to leverage her fire resistance while holding her rope bindings in the torch/camp fire? Can Fred do something with his razor sharp claws?

If the answer to any of those questions is yes or maybe then it doesn't matter that it's impossible for Alice to untie herself because the group is surrendering agency to self railroading if they don't even try talking out the knowns unknowns & assumptions of the situation before they immediately give up upon discovering that it's impossible for Alice to untie herself.

We seem to be talking past each other or something. I am saying that if the PCs do not have an opportunity to change their situation, then skip forward in time until they do. If they do, then let them try. If they decide they don't, don't torture them, skip forward until they do. Or just tell them something their PCs would know that the players have missed.

What I think is both a waste of time and a destroyer of fun is the GM saying "You are all tied up and in dank cells. Now what?" and then answering with "Nope, that didn't work. Now what?" ad nauseum because either there is no way out (but won't just tell them that) or the GM has one singular solution in mind and are focing the players to find it. None of that leads to more fun.

 

[plisnithus8]

The PHB says:
“Acrobatics. Your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check covers your attempt to stay on your feet in a tricky situation, such as when you're trying to run across a sheet of ice, balance on a tightrope, or stay upright on a rocking ship's deck. The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips.”

I don’t see how staying on one’s feet, keeping balance, or tumbling could possibly help get hands free from being tied.
Can someone offer an example?

 

[Reynard]

The PHB says:
“Acrobatics. Your Dexterity (Acrobatics) check covers your attempt to stay on your feet in a tricky situation, such as when you're trying to run across a sheet of ice, balance on a tightrope, or stay upright on a rocking ship's deck. The DM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips.”

I don’t see how staying on one’s feet, keeping balance, or tumbling could possibly help get hands free from being tied.
Can someone offer an example?

I think folks are folding contortion into acrobatics here.

 

[tetrasodium]

We seem to be talking past each other or something. I am saying that if the PCs do not have an opportunity to change their situation, then skip forward in time until they do. If they do, then let them try. If they decide they don't, don't torture them, skip forward until they do. Or just tell them something their PCs would know that the players have missed.

What I think is both a waste of time and a destroyer of fun is the GM saying "You are all tied up and in dank cells. Now what?" and then answering with "Nope, that didn't work. Now what?" ad nauseum because either there is no way out (but won't just tell them that) or the GM has one singular solution in mind and are focing the players to find it. None of that leads to more fun.

I'm not sure why you quoted post 66 to say that, I've made more than one attempt to point you back towards what you are ignoring to grind an axe of player agency=success as they want it. Your scenario in 49 has nothing to do with the unquoted section of what was written & described in 46 & seems to serve no purpose other than to demonstrate that there could be a scenario where players do not have agency in the middle of the GM actively narrating the current state of play. That scenario description in 46 was relevant because in 38 you mentioned not being able to see a scenario where players could be given agency to take action yet still be unable to do anything & it pointed out just such a scenario described in the video where the party decided to take action with an impossible to predict every man for themselves mindset that left someone trapped rather than working as a group.