D&D 5E Forked from the Quasit Thread - Some DMing Advice Learned from my Mistakes.

[iserith]

I'd probably second-guess whether I'd adequately set the scene as soon as the players said they were doing this: "Now, the PC's march up to the chieftain's hut and demand entrance." I don't want to just "negate their action," which is why I ask what they want to accomplish. Maybe they have a clever plan, I don't know. Failing that, I probably didn't do a good enough job describing the situation. I'd rather fix that than let the characters go all chaotic stupid when the players didn't think they were being chaotic stupid because they didn't understand the situation.

By "negating their action," I mean saying something like "Your character would think/know that's not going to work..." or words to that affect. I've seen some DMs do that before. That might even be said after they have clarified what they want to accomplish in the face of a clear description by the DM.

It sounds like you rarely encounter this issue due to your well-trained players and obsessive focus on clear and concise description, which is great. For the OP, though, it may still be a useful check to ask what the players are trying to accomplish if and when these situations pop up. Hell, he may find out he's doing a great job of setting up the situation, the players know exactly what's up, and they just want to go all chaotic stupid. Either way, good to know.

I suspect it's the latter (though admittedly that's based solely on the OP's recounting of this one situation). And if it is the latter, then I suspect the expectation of just about any action getting an ability check is at the heart of it. "I threaten the guard with bodily harm to get past him..." is smart play when you know you'll always get a check and you've pumped your Intimidation bonus. It may not be smart play in other "playstyles."

 

[Eis]

there's a big difference between the DM telling the players that intimidating the guards won't work and the guards telling the players' characters that they won't let them in unless they are there to talk to the chieftain

in the first case it may be "Zack, your character has dealt with these tribes before and he knows that these guards will not be intimidated" and then Zack and the gang know that it is an impossible plan

in the second case it may be "Go away outlanders, unless you have words for our leader we will never let you pass" and then Zack and the rest of the group decide that sure the guards talk a tough game but lets see what happens when we show our strength and bully them a bit

 

[iserith]

there's a big difference between the DM telling the players that intimidating the guards won't work and the guards telling the players' characters that they won't let them in unless they are there to talk to the chieftain

in the first case it may be "Zack, your character has dealt with these tribes before and he knows that these guards will not be intimidated" and then Zack and the gang know that it is an impossible plan

in the second case it may be "Go away outlanders, unless you have words for our leader we will never let you pass" and then Zack and the rest of the group decide that sure the guards talk a tough game but lets see what happens when we show our strength and bully them a bit

There's more to the context though than the guards simply telling the PCs they can't pass unless they have business with the chieftain. The PCs are also outnumbered and the guards know it. The PCs have no apparent leverage based on what we know. Taking that into consideration, while it may be reasonable for a player to try to have his or her character intimidate the guards, it is also reasonable in my view for the DM to just say the attempt fails, no roll, based on the context of the situation as described. Now, if there's an expectation that I get to roll an ability check for any action I take, generally speaking, then it would be a different story - that swingy d20 plus whatever investment I made into Intimidation allows me to ignore that context. That goes to "playstyle" influencing how players may behave in a given situation.

As for telling a player what his or her character thinks about something, I'm not a fan of that even though plenty of DMs do it. I prefer to describe the situation and let the player decide what the character thinks about it. I actually caught myself saying "You think..." in a session a couple weeks ago and stopped mid-sentence and corrected myself.

 

[akr71]

there's a big difference between the DM telling the players that intimidating the guards won't work and the guards telling the players' characters that they won't let them in unless they are there to talk to the chieftain

in the first case it may be "Zack, your character has dealt with these tribes before and he knows that these guards will not be intimidated" and then Zack and the gang know that it is an impossible plan

in the second case it may be "Go away outlanders, unless you have words for our leader we will never let you pass" and then Zack and the rest of the group decide that sure the guards talk a tough game but lets see what happens when we show our strength and bully them a bit

I agree that the two situations are different, however in the second case the DM is perfectly within his or her right to say the guards are not intimidated no matter what the player rolls. Furthermore, any game I have played or DM'd, the DM tells the player when to roll and what skill to use. Failing that, as the DM, I set the DC, so should the player really need to roll the dice to feel engaged, go ahead and roll - that does not mean the outcome has changed in my head.

For example:
Zack: I get up in the face of the guard and threaten him, in an attempt to intimidate our way in to see the Chief.
DM: Before you get close enough to do so, you are greeted by the tip of his spear in your own face. He sneers at you and warns you not push your luck and reminds you that the party is vastly out numbered.

OR

Zack: I get up in the face of the guard and threaten him, in an attempt to intimidate our way in to see the Chief. I roll a 23.
DM: You are greeted by the point of his spear. He sneers at you and warns you not to try that again - you and your friends are vastly outnumbered.

 

[S'mon]

I would always let the PC roll Intimidate. On a high enough roll, guard is scared of the PC.
Does not mean guard will necessarily let the PCs past. Better an honourable death in battle with the PCs than humiliation and execution by his chief.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

A similar trick I’ve used when the players might be going down a bad path is to have them make a perception or similar check (setting the DC really low, if at all, really), and then throw a detail at them that will hook them immediately. Using the original example, while trying to get into the aforementioned chieftain’s tent, I might have them make the check and then tell them “you see a furtive, sinister figure getting on a horse and starting to ride pell-mell out of the camp.” Like a red dot to a cat, chances are they’ll pounce on that instead.

Another solution to this dilemma, which I've found to work well with most groups:

DM: Everybody make a Wisdom (Insight) check, DC 10.
One or two players: I succeed!
DM: Then you know that your plan won't work, because <reasons>.
That one player, you know who I mean: But, but, but, what about <other reasons>?
DM: Still no. You'd have much better success doing <fun option A> or <fun option B> instead of your current plan, which is doomed to long, drawn-out failure.
Some other player: Oh, let's do <fun option B>! That sounds totally like a thing we would do!
​

 

[iserith]

A similar trick I’ve used when the players might be going down a bad path is to have them make a perception or similar check (setting the DC really low, if at all, really), and then throw a detail at them that will hook them immediately. Using the original example, while trying to get into the aforementioned chieftain’s tent, I might have them make the check and then tell them “you see a furtive, sinister figure getting on a horse and starting to ride pell-mell out of the camp.” Like a red dot to a cat, chances are they’ll pounce on that instead.

If the players are "going down a bad path" and it's not due to some misapprehension based on not understanding the DM's descriptions, wouldn't this trick essentially undermine their ability to make meaningful decisions? Your goal appears to be to protect the players from their own reasonably informed decisions.

I would also object to this technique as a player because, as I understand it, an ability check follows a statement of action by a player. Being asked to make a check out of the blue is to me an assumption of what the character is doing on the part of the DM. I've seen DMs do it from time to time and I always see it as both pointless, in that the DM can just describe the environment without asking for a roll, and assumptive of player character action.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

No, because I'm in no ways forcing them to do something (though I'll admit it is a form of trickery). In the example I've been using, I would still proceed with whichever direction they chose to go, if they chose to ignore the hypothetical skulking fellow, I would certainly roll with their decision regardless.

In my campaigns, I try to respect the players decisions and wants as much as possible. But if something absolutely needs to happen to make the game more fun and interesting for all parties involved, I think it's well within my prerogative to make sure it does.

If the players are "going down a bad path" and it's not due to some misapprehension based on not understanding the DM's descriptions, wouldn't this trick essentially undermine their ability to make meaningful decisions? Your goal appears to be to protect the players from their own reasonably informed decisions.

 

[Eis]

I agree that the two situations are different, however in the second case the DM is perfectly within his or her right to say the guards are not intimidated no matter what the player rolls. Furthermore, any game I have played or DM'd, the DM tells the player when to roll and what skill to use. Failing that, as the DM, I set the DC, so should the player really need to roll the dice to feel engaged, go ahead and roll - that does not mean the outcome has changed in my head.

For example:
Zack: I get up in the face of the guard and threaten him, in an attempt to intimidate our way in to see the Chief.
DM: Before you get close enough to do so, you are greeted by the tip of his spear in your own face. He sneers at you and warns you not push your luck and reminds you that the party is vastly out numbered.

OR

Zack: I get up in the face of the guard and threaten him, in an attempt to intimidate our way in to see the Chief. I roll a 23.
DM: You are greeted by the point of his spear. He sneers at you and warns you not to try that again - you and your friends are vastly outnumbered.

I totally agree....the difference is either the DM is flat out telling the player that it is impossible....so no roll because I just told you that it is NEVER going to happen....and the DM telling the characters (through words and actions of NPC's etc) that it isn't going to happen and the characters either getting that or not.....they can roll all they want if they still want to attempt to intimidate the guards, although no I wouldn't allow a roll because it is pointless.....the PC's can posture, roar, make with magical whizbangs....whatever....but the guards simply do not give....stuff your rolls lol

 

[iserith]

In my campaigns, I try to respect the players decisions and wants as much as possible. But if something absolutely needs to happen to make the game more fun and interesting for all parties involved, I think it's well within my prerogative to make sure it does.

That's fair enough. Still don't need to ask for rolls to do that though.