D&D 5E How has your personal experience/expertise affected rulings?

[Sacrosanct]

A certain thread sparked this thought, and then I had it again while watching a show and realized that my own personal experiences and expertise affects how I make rulings in the game, and was curious to see how everyone else handled this.

For example, people make a lot of assumptions about how hard something is, how possible it is, etc without actually knowing anything about it. We all do it. I've heard plenty of DMs say, "No, you can't do that because it's not really possible." when in fact it might surprise you.

For example, if the party is out in the woods, and it's been raining pretty steady for days on end without a break and a player says, "I'm gonna make a fire for camp.", I have heard, "You don't have any luck. Everything is soaked and won't light." or "Mmmmm....OK, but it's gonna be a DC 25 check because it's pretty much near impossible in this weather." That seems like a pretty typical ruling, right?

Here's the thing though. It's really not that hard to make a fire in those situations. All you have to do is find fatwood. I've done it several times. For those that don't know, fatwood is usually the inner core of a pine tree branch or trunk that is inundated with sap. No matter how much it's been raining, if you get a piece of fatwood and do some feathersticking (cutting it into thin curling strips), you will have a fire. But to my point, that's something I know only because I've done it, and I wouldn't expect others to know that. So if I were the DM in that scenario, and the PC had survival, I would allow it without even a roll (it is pretty easy to do if you have the knowledge).

Or a second example is climbing, like a rock face or mountain climbing. Most people who have never done it assume there is a large strength requirement needed. Nope. It's all technique. In fact, if you use your arms to pull you up, you'll burn out and get muscle failure very fast. If anything, all climbing checks would be DEX, not STR. Sorry DEV team, you got that one wrong. Same with survival. That should be intelligence, not wisdom. As a survivalist myself, it relies WAY more on actual knowledge than decision making skills, because the decision making skills are a no brainer if you have the knowledge to begin with. The only decision making skills are "get security, get shelter, get food, all in that order". Without the knowledge you're screwed.

Another example is a hard lesson I learned in land NAV in the army. The shortest distance is not the best solution. You're gonna burn yourself out getting from point A to point B in a straight line if you have to go down into draws and climb spurs. Much better to stick along the ridgeline, even if that means the distance is doubled. You'll have more energy, and it will probably be faster.

These are all examples of errors from assumptions I see in the game often. So what am I getting at?

I have come to the conclusion that if a PC is skilled in something, even if I myself don't see a way for it to work, I will assume that the PC has skills I just don't know about and will find a way to make it work unless it's something REALLY crazy. It also has the side effect of really making the ranger have a bigger impact in the game (which is what most people want). Wilderness exploration is a big part of the game, and unfortunately most of us just skim by it pretty fast, getting to the encounter bits. But a party without a ranger (or someone else with survival and navigation skills) should be getting lost A LOT, running out of food and water often, and being absolutely miserable because they can't make proper shelter or fire (without magic). Speaking of experience, having spent time miserable in my early days not knowing what I was doing, as a ruling I'd even enforce a penalty to skill checks, saving throws, and if it got bad or long enough, attack rolls. I can hear you all getting your indignation going at that last statement, but if you've ever spend a week out in the woods wet, cold, hungry, and covered in bug bites, you'd agree with me Again, which makes the ranger a valuable class to have.


I know I rambled, but I'd be curious to see what experience and expertise you've had in certain areas and activities, and how that made you do some houseruling to your games.

*Disclaimer*
This thread is not to argue of whether or not something someone says can actually happen. Everyone has their own ideas for their table, so that means they are right if it works. I will assume that someone with experience in something is a subject matter expert on the topic, so if I have no experience in the activity, it would be pretty disingenuous of me to argue with them on it based on incorrect assumptions I may have (probably from watching a movie or reading a book that was wrong).

 

[transtemporal]

Life is cruel and harsh. Compassion is for the weak. True strength can be found in the cold hard crucible of hatred. All my DCs are 25 or higher because the only thing more crushing than being told "no" is knowing you could never make the roll anyway! MUA HA HA HA HA!

Or... I just set it whatever the story demands and ignore how difficult it might be.

 

[Dualazi]

Mostly agree with the OP, while certain checks may be more accurately represented with other stats, people's varying level of knowledge shouldn't be used in favor or against their characters. This is not the least of which because it often slows down play; in the OP's example that fire-lighting might have just been the player adding some brief RP before a long rest, but now it has become a rule dispute and point of contention. Most of the time, it's not worth the derail even if it might give pause from personal concerns.

That being said, I have a personal rule to disregard almost any argument that stems from the basis of realism, as D&D makes no serious attempt to model realistic interactions and the vast majority of the time it seems used as an excuse to curtail player agency, particularly those of martial characters who are more explicitly assumed to operate within the bounds of reality.

 

[Seramus]

I've got a pretty heavy background in science, so whenever my players come up with a plan that involves physics or chemistry it always has horrible glaring flaws. Like hearing someone say 1+1=7. But you just have to bite your tongue and let them do it anyway. Look at the goal and assume they can find a way to make it happen, if they roll decently.

 

[iserith]

I try not to let realism get in the way of fun. (Within reason.) When I'm not sure whether something works is when the dice come out. That's usually during a dramatic situation. I'm not using rules or dice for mundane stuff.

Usually, I'm going to telegraph what isn't going to work ahead of time though so that players don't waste a lot of time (and actions) on doing things that aren't feasible given the current situation. If rain means no fire, for example, then I'll establish that when I describe the rain. And that's almost certainly because not having fire is going to be factor in whatever dramatic situation follows. It's a well-known fact that trolls love to attack during or after a good heavy rain.

 

[jasper]

Hmm.
"But Jasper gunpowder formula is 5 sulfur 3 saltpeter 2 charcoal, why can my wizard make a rifle!!!!" whined Jimmy.
"But Jasper, we could form a shield wall in less space, like the latrines a Ft Dauphlin Island, " mumbled Rami.
ETC ETC.
Yes I have changed the rules and made things easier or harder depend on my live skills and xp. "Hi I am Jasper a 3 level cook and 10th Cobol programmer, 2 level husband!"
But I agree with the OP. You may not know who to do something but the pcs does. And just the opposite just because you flunk out west point, the naval academy, and the marines corp threw you out, does not make your first level Nobel fighter the next Patton.

 

[guachi]

I'm a linguist by trade and know first hand how ridiculously hard some languages can be to learn, especially if they aren't similar to your native language. So I (and many of my players) are capable of playing as if there is more than a binary know/don't know the language.

As to starting a fire with sticks - I had to do that once in Boy Scout camp. None of us had ever done it. Took us 40 minutes and we were the only team to get it done. Tried it again later with what we had learned and the second time it took eight minutes. I remember thinking it was pretty good for 12-year-olds.

Of course, we had good equipment and it was dry being Montana in the summer. As I recall, we used a notched wood block, a straight stick, a strip of leather, gloves, cottonwood cotton (because if its high surface area to volume), wood, and a knife to shave off bits of that wood.

 

[delphonso]

I really like this topic, and have long argued about how Intimidate should work (honestly I think an argument could be made for every attribute).
As a story-telling device, I rely on my personal experience and the experiences of my players to depict things very often. When describing fights and how people move, I think a lot about boxing matches I've seen or participated in. When talking about survival, I think back to my middle school days when me and my buddies would run around in the woods and hit each other with sticks (pretty much the best game for any kid.) So, of course these things come into play - especially how hard I think something will be.

In general, my players and I have an understanding that if they role-play or give me details, I'll make checks easier. If they're in the woods and need to make camp, if they say "I make camp" and roll a d20, I'm going to throw a wrench in the works. However, if they tell me, "I find an outcropping of rock and set my bedroll under it. I gather some branches to build a simple wall" or something along those lines, I'll make it easier on them - since they're already doing the work.
Generally, we don't have a ton of experience in what we're doing - at least not first-hand experience - so I tend to dismiss if things are good or bad ideas in reality, but just want to encourage better role-playing.

 

[Guest 6801718]

I can't think of any cases off the top of my head where my own expertise influenced a ruling or a roll. Though I do have a few where the player was actually the expert and I asked them to explain. I have a few people in my group who are rock climbers, campers or other outdoor activities. When they want to do something, I just ask them to explain how. Usually I end up learning something cool, like don't rely on your arms or upper body for climbing. Now, asking them to describe something doesn't necessarily mean I'll make them roll for it. Sometimes I just want to add a little something to a scene and let the player look cool being the expert. My rule for making a roll or check is pretty simple. If the outcome has a consequence that will be important, I'll make them roll. Otherwise just let them have it. Getting better descriptions and getting the players more engaged is never a bad thing. So sometimes I ask just so they can look cool.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Getting past my rambling last night, I guess my basic point is that a lesson I learned after getting some of these related experiences was to catch myself about my own assumptions as a DM as to what is or isn't possible. As mentioned, D&D isn't not meant to model realism at all (even though many people enjoy that style). 20 years ago, I would make rulings about what is or isn't possible based on my own assumptions, and while it's natural to what to do that today, I try to keep in mind that the PC, not the player, may have knowledge I don't know about and therefore should give the PC the benefit of the doubt. Being an old school player where player skill is important, it's sometimes a challenge to keep that in mind.

And for things I DO know about, I will make houserules on (like the aforementioned ways I handle wilderness exploration/camping and climbing and survival checks---however I allow both wisdom or intelligence, as I don't want to punish a player who might have forgotten my changes).