Help please. Complaints by players!

[Zappo]

Pity I came in late. I think Gallo22 is more right than not, and the player is more wrong than not. However, I don't believe that following the rules is a limit for a good DM, and for this reason I don't really agree on ignoring the rules for the sake of challenge, story, or whatever, when it isn't needed.

What I would have done is having the bridge be a literal rope bridge (one rope to walk on, two ropes to hang onto), or a narrow plank without ropes. DC 20 is within the rules for this, and it's a challenge. Saying "yeah this looks just like a DC 15 bridge, except that it's DC 20" may be a challenge, but actually justifying the higher DC is better.

 

[noretoc]

Just have to jump in on the side of the DM here. The book could say 15, 5 or 50. Makes no difference. IT was an obstacle designed to offer some risk to the players. The DC conveyed the risk the DM wanted, for what ever reason. For someone to question that is out of line. Some players think they should have a lot more control of a game then they should. In order to act as your character would act, you have to look at the world as being something that is already there and nothing you can change, just because you do not like it. This does not mean the players cannot shape the world. But they should do AS PLAYERS. If you want to contribute to the world in a capacity beside that of a player (by coming up with rules, designing content, etc) then you should not be doing it during the game. Catch your DM another time. Talk about some stuff. If he doesn’t want your input then you deal with it. Either find a new group, or play as a player.
Players forget to see the world as their character would, and try to analyses it as if they were playing some board game. So what if that door you just burnt didn't fall to pieces, even thought you know the fire did more HP than the wood had. There are things happening your character wouldn't know. Just deal with it. As for the bridge, it looked fine. You should have been able to cross it. You were really surprised when you fell. Now you have to deal with the next step.
Also, an obstacle is just that. It doesn’t matter if it is normally an obstacle to low level or high. A pit trap is a pit trap is a pit trap. Just because you can make the save DC on a standard pit trap, does that mean you are never going to have to worry about again. Kinda boring to me. If it was like that, Indiana Jones would never have gotten into so much trouble. Most obstacles he failed at overcoming he had seen before.
Last, if the DM had set the DC so low that all the characters could easily make, they why have them roll. why not just describe the bridge and say how everyone crossed it. Or just throw in something where you can say "don't roll a one". Seems boring to me. No risk, what so ever. I like it when I can still be challenged by even the most simple things.

dang spell checker.

 

[coyote6]

Last, if the DM had set the DC so low that all the characters could easily make, they why have them roll. why not just describe the bridge and say how everyone crossed it.

Well, DC 15 Balance checks aren't so low that all characters can make it. Clerics and fighters in heavy armor have a good chance of failing, as their Balance check modifiers tend to be less than zero.

I have an 8th level cleric; his Balance check is -2, IIRC. Making a DC 15 is unlikely (15% chance); DC 20 is outright impossible. I'd probably ask what the approximate DC is ('cause my character can try to judge -- step on the bridge to test its slipperiness and stability, etc.).

When the freaking rogue slips and falls, I'd be looking for another way around.

Or just throw in something where you can say "don't roll a one". Seems boring to me. No risk, whatever.

Heh. Not with my group; saying "don't roll a one" is viewed as a guarantee that someone will roll a 1. It's also an invitation to be pelted with dice or the like.

I like it when I can still be challenged by even the most simple things.

Well, D&D is a problem in that regard, then. Actually, almost every RPG with advancement mechanics are problems in that regard. Eventually, your character will be badass enough that the most simple things just aren't challenging (without special circumstances; but once there are special circumstances, it's no longer "the most simple things").

Me, I see the appeal (as both player & GM) of both having the occasional simple thing be a challenge to powerful characters, and to having the powerful characters cakewalk past the simple things.

PS: DC 20 seems fair, to me.

 

[Zappo]

As for the bridge, it looked fine. You should have been able to cross it. You were really surprised when you fell.

And what if the character then wanted to inspect the bridge to find out why the crossing was exceptionally difficult? In my opinion, simply tossing an arbitrary DC might make a challenge, but it doesn't make a good story. There's got to be a reason. And since there are plenty of reasons for a bridge to have a crossing DC of 20, not even bothering to find one is a bit lazy IMO. Not a big problem, but still something that could be improved.

 

[Darkness]

Who died and made you God?

Jim Carrey!

And guys, please don't fight on the boards. Thanks.

- Darkness

 

[noretoc]

And what if the character then wanted to inspect the bridge to find out why the crossing was exceptionally difficult? In my opinion, simply tossing an arbitrary DC might make a challenge, but it doesn't make a good story. There's got to be a reason. And since there are plenty of reasons for a bridge to have a crossing DC of 20, not even bothering to find one is a bit lazy IMO. Not a big problem, but still something that could be improved.

It dosen't look like the player asked why it was difficult. Instead he just stared spouting dcs from the book. Also the dm had a reason. Covered with slime. Slippery slime. That sounds like solid planning to me.

 

[Tsyr]

It dosen't look like the player asked why it was difficult. Instead he just stared spouting dcs from the book. Also the dm had a reason. Covered with slime. Slippery slime. That sounds like solid planning to me.

Except that "slippery" is covered by the rules.

Mind you. Of course, DMs can change the rules, I'm not debating that. But it should be done with more logic than "I want this to be harder!"

 

[Ravellion]

About not tailoring to characters: I agree. I think you could have done with the 15 DC. This would make it easy for the rogue, but wait till the cleric tries to cross! However, technically that is not important.

As soon as you said he fails (and you gave him ample warning that this is a task he could fail, which a character of his experience should be able to estimate), he hadn't a foot to stand on, if you'll pardon the pun.

Of course, as soon as you start giving stone bridges high balance checks just "to challenge your 9th level rogue", something's gone wrong.

Rav

 

[Aaron L]

My only point was that when there is a rule to cover a situation it should be followed to maintain a consistent game.

And I DM as much as I play.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Once again, this has devolved into a chorus of "DM is God, smite insolent players!"... *sigh* And once again, this could have been such an interesting debate.


It depends what type of game you run...

Do you want to stick to the rules when there are set rules for a situation? If so, the rules do, technicaly, say that a DC15 is appropriate for this type of encounter.

Now, regarding it being a challenge for a 9th level rogue with 20 dex...

This is one of those "How much does the world morph to accomodate your players" questions... I mean, why should everything ALWAYS be a challenge for them? Does nobody ever pick a fight in your world that they aren't ready for?

I ask this honestly... I've played under some GMs who will have our PCs stumble upon challenges far beyond our abilities, and tell us "The world isn't tailored to you alone, sometimes things will be too hard for you", but never explore the logical flipside of that and have things that are too easy for us.

I mean, if your only concern is "Is it a tough DC check", then fine, DC 20. Run with that. No need to ask us. But you did ask us for opinions. So...

Honestly, I can see the players side here... There is a book-set rule for this. While DMs are free to change these rules as they see fit, that doesn't mean they *must* always change these rules. There are times when the rules are fine as they are. Otherwise it turns into a GM/PC arms race... The world (as a whole) starts becomming more dangerous just because PCs can now handle more. In that case, why level, ne? Getting better at stuff *should* let you do stuff easy at times, doubly so when it actualy counts for something. Not always, but I'd be pretty upset if the only advantage to gaining levels was just the level gain itself... It's nice to feel that "Hey, I can do some stuff now without much worry!", once and a while.

One question, you didn't answer: Were the PCs holding onto the rope-rails? If so, I *definetly* think that you should have either lowered the DC check, or given them a fair sized bonus for that.

1. Yes the DM is God. If you have a problem with that then reinstall Baldurs Gate and stick to it instead of games with actual humans in it.

2. No the rules do not say the DC is 15. Unless you are going to tell me that no matter how slick something is the DC only goes up by 5 which is what you are saying. The rope bridge could be wet from rain which would make the bridge slick it could also be covered in rendered animal fat intentionally by the villian to make it much slicker. Is that a DC +5 also? I will hope you say no.


3. You are falling into a VERY common player trap. You are assuming you know ALL the details. The player thought so as well and started to complain and argue about the situation and puts the DM in a very ty position. He now has to either ruin the moment by explaining all the facts the players character doesnt know or tell him to politely drop it and hope he does.