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

[Hussar]

There are two reasons why I don't have a problem with the intimidate check.

1. The player invested in the skill and rolled well. I really believe in letting the dice strongly guide the game. If the dice say you succeed, then you succeed, if you fail, you fail. And, I have no real problems with a player saying, "I intimidate the guard - I got a 24". Great. AFAIC, not a problem. Would it have occurred to me that the players might do that? Probably not. But, when it happened, I rolled with it (no pun intended). They succeeded in getting past the guards. Note, that that success was a bit pyrric, since barging into the meeting means that the potentially friendly NPC starts Hostile, making convincing the chieftain much more difficult. But, still, they hadn't "failed" at that point.

2. This one is purely metagame. I WANT them to get into that tent to talk to the chieftain. That's the point of their being there. They are supposed to convince the chieftain that the cultists are really, really bad and are a major threat. They can't do that unless they actually meet the chieftain. So, while they gained entrance in a manner that I was a bit taken aback by, I can't really fault them for doing what I wanted them to do in the first place - get into that meeting and warn the chieftain.

So, as far as that goes, I'm not fussed about my ruling there. It worked in the fiction (the heroes are Big Damn Heroes and it lets them feel like Big Damn Heroes to throw their weight around from time to time) and it was plausible enough.

Now, where I made a mistake was insisting that they treat with the chieftain. They barged in and demanded to talk to the cult leader. Now, at that point, I booted them out the door and things went pear shaped. What I should have done was just back off a bit. Let them talk to the cult leader and see where that leads. It could very well come out that the PC's talk about how much of a threat the cultists are anyway and I can then go into an opposed skill challenge between the cultists and the PC's to convince the chieftain. Granted, the PC's would be at higher DC's because of their choices (choices do have consequences), but, I could have salvaged that scene and it would have been a lot more fun.

I guess my advice is, I let my ego get in the way. Instead of stepping back and thinking, "Hrm, this scene isn't as fun as it could be, what can I do to make it fun?" I went with my (as was mentioned upthread) first DM thoughts which was, "The players are being asshats and the NPC isn't going to put up with it!"

First DM thoughts aren't always the best way to go.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Honestly, if my players really wanted to do something I consider would ruin all the fun, I just honestly tell my players just that rather than making up in-game reasons why it doesn't work.

That being said, I'm quite flexible and try to work with player ideas as much as possible, so it takes quite a bit to push me to the point where I tell them they shouldn't do something.

 

[iserith]

There are two reasons why I don't have a problem with the intimidate check.

1. The player invested in the skill and rolled well. I really believe in letting the dice strongly guide the game. If the dice say you succeed, then you succeed, if you fail, you fail. And, I have no real problems with a player saying, "I intimidate the guard - I got a 24". Great. AFAIC, not a problem. Would it have occurred to me that the players might do that? Probably not. But, when it happened, I rolled with it (no pun intended). They succeeded in getting past the guards. Note, that that success was a bit pyrric, since barging into the meeting means that the potentially friendly NPC starts Hostile, making convincing the chieftain much more difficult. But, still, they hadn't "failed" at that point.

2. This one is purely metagame. I WANT them to get into that tent to talk to the chieftain. That's the point of their being there. They are supposed to convince the chieftain that the cultists are really, really bad and are a major threat. They can't do that unless they actually meet the chieftain. So, while they gained entrance in a manner that I was a bit taken aback by, I can't really fault them for doing what I wanted them to do in the first place - get into that meeting and warn the chieftain.

So, as far as that goes, I'm not fussed about my ruling there. It worked in the fiction (the heroes are Big Damn Heroes and it lets them feel like Big Damn Heroes to throw their weight around from time to time) and it was plausible enough.

The thing with "playstyles" is that, while everyone should play how they want to play, I think it's really important to understand how "playstyle" impacts player behavior. This is why I zeroed in on this one seemingly small point as the beginning of the issues you report.

The DMG talks about this at length and I find that what is said in that section matches my experience with many different "playstyles." A possible drawback of "letting the dice strongly guide the game" is that the players think their decisions and characterizations aren't as important as the dice. Which is a fair conclusion, right? If I can always roll a Charisma (Intimidation) check to get what I want, then I should pump that skill up as best I can and do that, regardless of what the DM has telegraphed about the situation before me. Most everything is going to be a roll and nothing is going to be better than the skill in which I am invested. That's my hammer and everything else is a nail. I'm exaggerating a little bit here, of course, but I think most people who have played for a while can identify with this sort of thing.

Now, contrast that with what the DMG calls the "middle path," wherein the DM balances the use of dice against deciding on success. This encourages "players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world." Players like mine would almost certainly have examined what the NPC guard said and replied they had business with the chieftain. That's doubly true because they know automatic success is way more desirable than rolling that fickle d20 which will screw them and everyone they ever loved if given half a chance. As a result, we'd likely have no hostility at the outset, the players would modify their approach to include talking to the chieftain as well as the cult leader, and the DM would have no reason to be annoyed.

So, none of this is to say that you or anyone else is playing the wrong way. And for some reason, people seem to link "playstyle" with identity which makes it tricky to have a conversation about "playstyle" without someone feeling attacked. I'm on your side when it comes to how you set the scene with the NPC guards. That was the best way to do it in my view - you told them in so many words what they needed to do to achieve automatic success (in the "middle path" anyway). It's just that "playstyle" in my view probably had a big hand in determining everything that followed. The reasonable expectation of the player is that there was going to be a roll of some kind. So why not choose the approach in which the PC was invested?

Don't be too hard on yourself. It wasn't all you.

 

[Harzel]

There are two reasons why I don't have a problem with the intimidate check.

1. The player invested in the skill and rolled well. I really believe in letting the dice strongly guide the game. If the dice say you succeed, then you succeed, if you fail, you fail. And, I have no real problems with a player saying, "I intimidate the guard - I got a 24".

I am curious about several things, but I'll focus on this. Did you set a DC for this or was it an opposed check of some kind? If you set a DC, did you take into consideration the PC's stats (abilities, proficiency, skill bonuses) so as to enable them to succeed with a high enough roll or would it have been possible (even though it wasn't the case in this situation) for them to be rolling against a DC that made success numerically impossible?

 

[Hussar]

I am curious about several things, but I'll focus on this. Did you set a DC for this or was it an opposed check of some kind? If you set a DC, did you take into consideration the PC's stats (abilities, proficiency, skill bonuses) so as to enable them to succeed with a high enough roll or would it have been possible (even though it wasn't the case in this situation) for them to be rolling against a DC that made success numerically impossible?

Well, in 5e, DC 20 is hard - it's to the point where it's more or less impossible for anyone who isn't trained+has a decent stat bonus. So, considering they scored above 20, I don't see the problem here. Intimidating the guard shouldn't be terribly difficult. I don't believe in the invincible NPC that is fearless. This is just a couple of guards. Intimidation to get past isn't anywhere near an impossible check, AFAIC.

I just don't see the point of forcing my ideas onto the game. It's not like intimidating the guard is out of genre - I can easily see Conan forcing his way past the guards on force of presence nor should it be an impossible check, again, IMO. And, since success carries consequences, it makes the game more interesting. Just turning them away is boring.

It's easy to simply auto-fail the players and force them to guess what you want them to do. It's much more challenging to incorporate their ideas into your game.

 

[Sadras]

Sometimes we have sessions that fall a little flat. Perhaps not enough planning, sometimes not enough sleep and then there are sessions where players just roleplay 'poorly' or it could be a combination of those factors and others, and it results in creativity failing on both sides leading to a lack-lustre session. It sucks.

@Hussar I don't believe your decision to have the characters kicked out the tent was a poor one given their behaviour - it made perfect sense to me. I believe the problem was long before, predominantly in the setting up of the encounter. It was all rather linear with you having a preset idea of how it was meant to play out. We are all guilty of that.

Recently someone here posted some decent advice where you (as DM) ask the players for a small 5-10 minute break while you go through some notes and determine the course of the immediate repercussions due to actions/events which you might not have prepared for. I think in times like the one you're describing, such a timeout with some coffee might be useful to get the ol'creative gears going in order to lift the game, that way saving the session.

I haven't had the opportunity to do this yet but it is certainly a tool I can see myself using.

 

[mflayermonk]

It's easy to simply auto-fail the players and force them to guess what you want them to do. It's much more challenging to incorporate their ideas into your game.

I think you need to protect the game world, first (more than incorporating player ideas into your game). I think you did the right thing-some paths are just dead ends and it has nothing to do with being a "fun DM". It's an opportunity for growth as a character, and a reasonable one.

 

[iserith]

Well, in 5e, DC 20 is hard - it's to the point where it's more or less impossible for anyone who isn't trained+has a decent stat bonus. So, considering they scored above 20, I don't see the problem here. Intimidating the guard shouldn't be terribly difficult. I don't believe in the invincible NPC that is fearless. This is just a couple of guards. Intimidation to get past isn't anywhere near an impossible check, AFAIC.

My understanding of the rules and adjudication process is that the DM judges whether the action attempted by the character succeeds or fails. If the DM isn't sure, THEN he or she sets the DC. There is no DC for a task that automatically succeeds or fails. An automatic failure isn't an un-achievable DC. It's just a failure.

I just don't see the point of forcing my ideas onto the game. It's not like intimidating the guard is out of genre - I can easily see Conan forcing his way past the guards on force of presence nor should it be an impossible check, again, IMO. And, since success carries consequences, it makes the game more interesting. Just turning them away is boring.

It's easy to simply auto-fail the players and force them to guess what you want them to do. It's much more challenging to incorporate their ideas into your game.

It's genre appropriate, sure. But it seems a bit inconsistent with what you appeared to have established about the scene. Stating in so many words that the approach of intimidation is basically off the table isn't you "forcing your ideas into the game" or "forcing them to guess what you want them to do." It's simply framing the challenge and giving the players a heads up that they should try something else other than that one thing. There's a whole host of other things they could try.

As I mentioned upthread, it reads to me as: DM says a thing is impossible. "Playstyle" allows for player to override by forcing an ability check. This ticks off DM. Player continues to be pushy because, hey, it works and I can always just force another ability check. DM is more ticked off, scene goes badly from there.

If the "playstyle" didn't allow for that, there would likely have been a different outcome. Which, again, is not to say you shouldn't play how you want to play. I am a player with a group that is largely similar (and notably they have the same issues). I just don't think you're necessarily the source of the problem as you outlined in your original post.

 

[Harzel]

Well, in 5e, DC 20 is hard - it's to the point where it's more or less impossible for anyone who isn't trained+has a decent stat bonus. So, considering they scored above 20, I don't see the problem here.

Sorry, I think maybe my questions came across with a tone I did not intend. I just wanted to understand your methodology more thoroughly, including a bit beyond the bounds of the particular example since sometimes context matters. I didn't mean to imply that there was a problem.

So it sounds like you judged the DC to be, more or less, 20. Seems perfectly reasonable. But given the circumstances (at least so far as I know them), a DC of 25 would also have been plausible. Which sort of brings me back to my question - would you ever set a DC that you knew the PC could not succeed at? If so, would you have them roll anyway?

Intimidating the guard shouldn't be terribly difficult. I don't believe in the invincible NPC that is fearless. This is just a couple of guards. Intimidation to get past isn't anywhere near an impossible check, AFAIC.

I think there is still some room between "not terribly difficult" and "invincible", and, at least for me, that territory includes situations in which success via a given approach might be possible for some character, but not for any of a given batch of PCs.

I just don't see the point of forcing my ideas onto the game.

I think I understand the sentiment, but really I think all DMs sort of by definition establish much of the context of the game, and likewise all DMs allow their players to establish some parts of the game. It's just where you draw the line.

It's not like intimidating the guard is out of genre - I can easily see Conan forcing his way past the guards on force of presence nor should it be an impossible check, again, IMO. And, since success carries consequences, it makes the game more interesting. Just turning them away is boring.

To each his own, I suppose. As a player I think I would find it boring to adventure in a world that continually yielded to my will, even in a probabilistic fashion. But honestly, I have never tried it, and I also recognize that this is a playstyle that some folks definitely have fun with.

It's easy to simply auto-fail the players and force them to guess what you want them to do. It's much more challenging to incorporate their ideas into your game.

I, um, ok, I think I'll just let this part go.

 

[Shasarak]

I think you need to protect the game world, first (more than incorporating player ideas into your game). I think you did the right thing-some paths are just dead ends and it has nothing to do with being a "fun DM". It's an opportunity for growth as a character, and a reasonable one.

Personally I think game world fidelity should not rank particularly highly at the game table. Flexibility would probably be more important.