I want my actions to matter

[Lanefan]

Yes,I fully understand your reasoning behind it. I felt the same way in 1986.

So you got it right nearly 40 years ago. Why are we arguing?

 

[Lanefan]

Right, this is a perfect example of what I said: Because the players wished something, you as the DM altered the game reality to make it so. The players say "we don't like the demon stuff" and the DM says "yes, players, the demons go away."

Not quite. The players in-character (and, I assume, out-of-character) weren't interested in the demons adventures, so in-character they instead jumped on a ship and sailed far away to do other adventuring instead.

I really don't get the point of why you high light the 'demon story' in the back ground. What is the point if it will never effect the game? Sure as part of your DM Novel you can say what is happening far away from the game....but what is the point?

The point is to let the players (and characters) know that the mess they left behind them has had some long-term consequences. This is the exact opposite of the DM allowing the players to wish away the demons: the players had their characters leave the demons but the demons are still there, and someone else in the setting had to deal with them.

Now if you're suggesting the DM here should have had the demons chase the PCs down, or that the PCs shouldn't have been allowed to walk away from the demon adventures in the first place, we're just not going to agree further.

Well, one of the Tag Line of my game is that it's Unfair. Maybe players should pay more attention to words.

But it's not like a DM can be fair when they outclass their players. I can think of tons of things...but the bad players struggle with even one. One from just a few weeks ago: The players struggle to get into the vault...and find it only has a small amount of loot. Unhappy the players whine and cry about their actions not mattering. And to this day if it get brought up they will whine and cry about it. Of course the simple truth is : there was a hidden vault inside the vault. But the players can't even conceive of that idea. So they never checked....just whined and complained.

Hidden vault inside the vault. Nice.

That sound fine in general.

Well, except my game is a full railroad game....

That won't be a popular notion in these parts. A small amount of judicious railroading on rare occasions is fine and can sometimes be necessary, but all railroad all the time does tend to play hell with player agency...and annoy the players.

On DC....well I have another thing that hundreds of players and DMs do...and yet "Nobody" here has ever even heard a rumor of it:

So the Buddy DM says the DC is 15.

Then the players pick the character with the right skill/ability or whatever, with the highest plus and make sure to add the mundane and magic or expertise or advantage or whatever needed to make sure they get that 15. Then they roll and get higher then that 15 needed...amazingly.

In fairness, one would think they'd try to pick the best character for the task at hand anyway. Whether the actual DC number is known in advance or not shouldn't change this.

 

[Maxperson]

And when they find out that hard way that the wall is greased and rolling a 15 still ain't nowhere near good enough, then what?

Then if they didn't find that out the moment they put their hand on the wall, something went terribly wrong. They will know it's greased before the climb actually starts.

More broadly, giving the DC both assumes the PCs' assessment is always correct (whcih isn't guaranteed, people misjudge things all the time) and that there's no hidden information. Saying, for example, that it looks fairly easy to climb (because they didn't notice the grease) but then telling them it's DC 22 is a pretty big red flag that all isn't as it seems; so why would I do that?

The DC has nothing to do with the PC. It's player knowledge. While the player knows it's a DC 16, the PC only knows that it's moderately hard. And telling the player the DC doesn't preclude hidden information. If there's a trap that will grease the wall in the middle of the climb, the DC is suddenly going to become much higher.

 

[Lanefan]

Then if they didn't find that out the moment they put their hand on the wall, something went terribly wrong. They will know it's greased before the climb actually starts.

I was thinking of a situation where the wall's 30 feet high and only the top 10 feet has been greased, as a painful deterrent.

Obviously, if it's greased right down to the ground they'll notice that before (or just when) they try to climb it.

The DC has nothing to do with the PC. It's player knowledge. While the player knows it's a DC 16, the PC only knows that it's moderately hard.

If the PC only knows (or thinks) it's moderately hard then that's what the player should also know. IME players are really bad at ignoring information their characters don't have but they-as-players do, so I try not to put them in that position.

And telling the player the DC doesn't preclude hidden information. If there's a trap that will grease the wall in the middle of the climb, the DC is suddenly going to become much higher.

 

[Maxperson]

I was thinking of a situation where the wall's 30 feet high and only the top 10 feet has been greased, as a painful deterrent.

Not really. One hand hits the grease when you lift it up. You hang there for a moment wiping the grease off on your cloths and then either figure out another way, or climb back down. It's not like you are going to get high enough up to have your feet slip or put both hands in the grease.

It's a deterrent yes, but most likely not a painful one.

If the PC only knows (or thinks) it's moderately hard then that's what the player should also know.

Why? Should the player only get to roll a die if the PC rolls a die? I don't tell the DC numbers myself, but not because I think the players will abuse the information. Rather I keep the numbers to a minimum to try and avoid spoiling immersion. The more numbers enter the conversations the more the game feels like a game and not an experience.

IME players are really bad at ignoring information their characters don't have but they-as-players do, so I try not to put them in that position.

My experience is the opposite. Not only can most ignore it, but they will pointedly ignore it even to the detriment of the PC just to avoid using the knowledge.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So you got it right nearly 40 years ago. Why are we arguing?

Because it’s not “right” it’s simply one way to do things. Let’s remember who called what the other does “bad GMing”.

 

[mamba]

Well, one of the Tag Line of my game is that it's Unfair. Maybe players should pay more attention to words.

I guess they should

But it's not like a DM can be fair when they outclass their players.

sure they can, the goal is not to thwart the players at everything until they stumble upon whatever the DM wanted them to do in the first place

Well, except my game is a full railroad game....

then why do you wonder about their complaint…

I'm not a Buddy DM that is on the players side and a fan of the players and give them endless OOC help.

I am starting to agree with your players (not that this needs endless OOC help, but this post sounds like an adversarial DM…)

So far I mostly saw you as an oldschool DM that does challenge the players, but this post is something else

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes,I fully understand your reasoning behind it. I felt the same way in 1986.

And? The fact that you've changed your mind since then doesn't make your new feelings objectively better than your old ones or @Lanefan 'S current feelings. How is that statement less insulting to him than his statement was to your feelings?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yup. This is all so much more important than withholding the info from the players in some attempt at verisimilitude.

Most of the time, folks have a good enough idea of odds for tasks they may attempt that sharing the DC is suitable to make it clear… especially if we’re supposed to be accurately describing things any way. And on the few occasions when the character might not have a strong sense of the odds… so what? That sliver of verisimilitude doesn’t amount to anything compared to maximizing player agency and trust by being transparent.

I don't want that degree of transparency, and if I got it anyway I would do my best to ignore it. To me it harms immersion to be throwing numbers around unnecessarily. Just do the best job you can describing the situation, and let me respond to that. That is good GMing to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Gotta say I've fine with either way and as a DM I've used both in the past, even in the same session. To call either method bad DM is a bit hyperbolic, we don't need to insult each other over a matter of style.

A lot of games (outside D&D) have actual fixed target numbers linked to the narrative words you use for tasks anyway.

So when you say something is easy it's DC 5, routine DC 10, average DC 15 for example. So knowing the rules is bad metagaming?

Its not bad metagaming for that game if the game tells you to be clear, no. Still not my preference.