I want my actions to matter

[Micah Sweet]

Most of the things you have listed in your bullet points wouldn't affect the DC of a climb. They seem more about separate ability checks that would be needed to notice traps or guards or what have you. Those would not be part of a check made to climb a wall.



No, it's not. It's advocating for taking the information that the characters have and then translating that information into the language of the game for the player.

I mean, so many things in D&D and RPGs in general involve number scores. Numbers are a core part of the gameplay... they're everywhere. This idea that they simply fade into the background unless a DC is shared, and then all of a sudden it's like Neo seeing the Matrix... it doesn't seem like a legitimate concern.

It seems to me, more about withholding information in some sense of making things difficult. That the DC of the ability check isn't a sufficient challenge for the character or player... we have to add some uncertainty on the player side to make things harder.

It also enables GMs to fudge, either for or against the players. It allows the GM to use gotcha tactics.

Far better to eliminate all that and share the DC and play the game and keep things moving rather than trying to artificially pump up what's a minor challenge.

I don't know why you seem to dislike GMs so strongly, but your evidence is in any case anecdotal.

And by the way, the phrase I think is more accurate is, that doesn't seem like a legitimate concern to me"

 

[Lanefan]

You're advocating for vague or incomplete information. To intentionally obfuscate elements of the game to confound players. And for what? To avoid saying a number? To avoid giving the player a clear idea on their odds of success? To maintain some sense of doubt even though there's already such a thing because of the dice?

Of course the wall doesn't have a big number on it. Neither does the character. But the character is, for purposes of playing the game, a collection of numbers. These numbers mean things.

When in the real world you're standing in front of a steep bank or cliff that you might or might not be able to climb, how closely do you know your odds of being able to climb it?

I'd bet it would come down to estimates along the lines of "piece of cake", "shouldn't be a problem", "could be tricky", "yeah, that's a bit risky", "I'm only trying that if it's life or death", and "not a hope". Usually the first and last of those - "piece of cake" and "not a hope" - are pretty obvious, but the rest aren't so clear. Further, those perceptions might not always be accurate - "this looked easy, but now I'm stuck", or "I thought this would be tough but now I'm up here there's way more handholds than I could see from the bottom." - and giving a hard number denies these misperceptions.

That's how I want the players-as-characters thinking (and as a player, that's how I want to be thinking). The DM, be it me or someone else, can worry about the actual mechanics behind the scenes.

Hard numbers ruin that for two reasons: one, they break immersion; but (and IMO more importantly) two, they don't allow me to make a mistake in perception or interpretation. If for whatever reason I've talked myself into thinking this cliff will be easy to climb and the DM then throws out that its DC is 19, that meta-information is going to make me rethink in a hurry. Flip side - if I've talked myself into thinking I can't climb it but then the DM says the DC is only 10, up I go.

Keeping them from players is just unnecessary and silly. All to preserve a sense of immersion that's so fragile that mention of a number shatters it. But not all the other numbers... just the one the player needs to understand the odds. All the other numbers are fine to talk about.

Some numbers are unavoidable. Others (such as task DCs) have a choice as to whether they can be replaced with description, and my stance is that it's better to do it that way and leave some uncertainty (as would be the case in reality) before even getting to the roll.

 

[Micah Sweet]

If we hide DCs, why not hide damage tallies taken and delivered?

And why not hide PC level, ability and skill numbers. Like, my sheet shouldn't say 18 STR, +6 to hit, +6 STR (Athletics). It should say "really strong person whose good at muscly stuff and sword-fighting". And then when I declare actions, the GM just does all the maths behind their screen.

There you go. If one has an issue, they have to commit to the principle 100% in every situation or their preference is meaningless. I was waiting for someone to make that claim.

 

[pemerton]

When in the real world you're standing in front of a steep bank or cliff that you might or might not be able to climb, how closely do you know your odds of being able to climb it?

What's your answer to this question? Are you an experienced climber?

I'd bet it would come down to estimates along the lines of "piece of cake", "shouldn't be a problem", "could be tricky", "yeah, that's a bit risky", "I'm only trying that if it's life or death", and "not a hope". Usually the first and last of those - "piece of cake" and "not a hope" - are pretty obvious, but the rest aren't so clear.

Is this based on your own experience as an athlete?

Some numbers are unavoidable.

Which ones?

 

[Lanefan]

I think it's less about immersion and more about the reflex to hold back information. That sharing information is somehow making things too easy. I know that's how I could feel at times in the past when I shared this sentiment.

"Metagaming" used to mean considering elements outside the game. Now it means considering elements that are specifically of the game.

Metagaming means - and always has - considering and (ab)using elements outside what the character can perceive.

 

[Lanefan]

If we hide DCs, why not hide damage tallies taken and delivered?

As I said just above, some numbers are unavoidable.

That said, I never tell them how many hit points their foe has left but instead describe what the characters see: "He's still in great shape!", "She's looking a bit rattled", "That blow wiped the smirk off his face - he really felt that", "This monster is looking decidedly worse for wear", "He's clearly on his last legs", and so forth.

And why not hide PC level, ability and skill numbers. Like, my sheet shouldn't say 18 STR, +6 to hit, +6 STR (Athletics). It should say "really strong person whose good at muscly stuff and sword-fighting". And then when I declare actions, the GM just does all the maths behind their screen.

Ya know, in an ideal world I could get behind this as a player. But we ain't got an ideal world, so...

 

[Lanefan]

What's your answer to this question? Are you an experienced climber?

Is this based on your own experience as an athlete?

No athlete here, but I grew up near a beach that was lined with steep banks, cliffs, and so forth. I tried climbing up and down a lot of those banks and rarely if ever guessed the difficulty right, causing me to get stuck more than once (and fall a few times, luckily for me always before I'd got very high) and in one case get tide-trapped for hours when I couldn't go further up and the tide came in before I could get back down.

Characters will be better at guessing the difficulty than I was as a kid, but won't be perfect.

Which ones?

Combat numbers, mostly; and root stats.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I believe that's for the DM to decide just as the DC is for the DM to decide. It's also a simple example, guards shooting at you through matriculations while your fingers are going numb or losing strength due to a contact toxin seem like elements that very much would impact the difficulty of a climb.

I would expect attacks to use the normal process... the attackers would need to hit the climbing PCs AC and do damage. If that happened, then I would expect the climber to have to make a check or a savin throw or similar to avoid falling. But I'd explain all of this at the start, or when it became introduced.

"the wall is 50 feet tall & slick with goop" is the language of the game, "climbing the wall would be DC xx" is a mechanical target. The two are not the same

That's my point. One is for the character, the other is for the player.

That's not a can of worms you want to open without subjecting the PCs to the sort of narrative compels seen in many more narrative games.

I don't know what this means. I've never had this problem from sharing DCs in D&D.

Until then, stop blaming the GM.

No. It's a choice the GM makes, so any negative element of it is their responsibility.

The act of players taking actions "keeps things moving".

Things can move along at varying speeds. My point is by sharing DCs, I often avoid the barrage of questions that come from a player having incomplete information. It allows us to actually get on with the climbing and, more importantly I assume, whatever they are climbing for, rather than answering clarifying questions because of vague phrasing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I simply don't feel a good description is a worse way to do that. YMMV.

Why not both a description and the rules?

You're welcome to feel that way. I'd rather just see what my PC sees and make a judgment based on what they know. YMMV.

And I'm sure you never consider the other math in the game. You never consider the PCs skills when deciding if you want to try something taht will require a check. You never consider your AC and HP when deciding to face an opponent openly, or to try and avoid them and seek help. And so on.

We either acknowledge that the numbers represent observable things for the characters in the game world, or we don't. If we do accept it, then sharing the numbers shouldn't be an issue.

I don't know why you seem to dislike GMs so strongly, but your evidence is in any case anecdotal.

And by the way, the phrase I think is more accurate is, that doesn't seem like a legitimate concern to me"

Of course I only speak for myself, Micah. You can assume anything I say on these boards is "according to me".

Also, way to assume a motive on my part while simultaneously trying to admonish me. I don't dislike GMs at all, and that's a really silly assumption on your part. I've made it clear that my motive is transparency.

 

[bloodtide]

I guess my experience comes from playing with a DM who, on the surface, really let us do whatever we wanted as characters, but the only actions that really mattered were the ones that followed her preordained plot. So we could invest in an inn, adopt an orphan, research hidden treasures... But none of that really mattered unless because once we were done the DM would just say, "Okay, the next day you receive a message that..." and the plot would move forward, our actions having made no impact.

So what is wrong with this? What exactly does a player want when they do something like this?

Assuming your not already playing Innkeepers and Guests RPG or such. So say your playing 5E D&D with a tabixi barbarian, half elf arcane archer, halfling warlock and human death cleric that have gone on five adventures so far. Then the players just randomly 'buy an inn'. So sure the DM sits back for a whole hour while the players do all sorts of stuff for their inn. And then after the whole hour the DM gets back to the "game" with a "ok, a message...". And this makes the players unhappy? were the players planning on just playing The Inn Game from now on? So like what...oh no dirty dishes...um...the barbarian will use their rage ability to wash the dishes? The warlock will light the candles in the common room at night? And so on? But the players don't want to switch games to Motel Six The RPG?

If there's something that's genuinely surprising... like some ability that's not obvious, then I probably wouldn't share that. But otherwise, I'm uninterested in hiding things from the players. I want them to play the game and make informed decisions and then see what happens. I don't want to watch them constantly guess about everything.

I do this another way.

I will never just give players a dump of information while they just sit there. This is too Buddy DM. The DM tells the players "oh...remember only silver or magic can hurt a werewolf". The players all smile and say "thanks buddy DM". Then the DM says "some werewolves come out of the woods to attack!". And then players have their characters ready their silver and magic weapons.

I want players to know things for real. Any any player that asks will get a lists of articles and books to read.

I want the players to see things in the game play and research and investigate to learn things. Not just sit there and have the Buddy DM tell them things.

I tell the players these details because their characters are standing there looking at these details.

I will tell the players what they can see and hear and such. But I will never add in the Buddy DM details. I will say "the smooth stone wall is wet and slimy". But not "the wall is wet and slimy so you know it will be a hard climb" or worse "the slimy wall is a hard climb adding to the DC to make it 20."

I leave it 100% up to the players: they must have enough knowladge, intelligence and common sense to understand things like "fire is hot and will burn you" , "water is wet and puts out fires" or "wet slimy walls are hard to climb."

This is a big problem for Casual Clueless players that expect the Buddy DM to tell them all things. I'll say "the back wall of pure darkness is covered in large and small up turned spikes and a light purple colored thick liquid." And when a Casual Clueless player is like "ok, my character climbs up the wall", I'm ready with the....."well, ok so spikes and liquid both will effect your character......". The the poor player is all confused...