I want my actions to matter

[hawkeyefan]

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?

Pretty good, actually. I think that people are generally better at this than is claimed in these kinds of discussions. Especially highly trained people.

I used to play soccer a lot. I could tell you with reliably well what was within my capabilities and what was in doubt and what was impossible. I could assess my skill compared to that of other players. I knew my weaknesses and my strengths as a player.

I also used to ski quite a bit. I knew what I could handle on a mountain. I recognized when my skill level increased and I became more comfortable tackling tougher slopes.

I think that generally speaking, trained people have a solid understanding of their skill and the challenge posed by an obstacle. Enough to portray that with rudimentary math and a randomization method, for sure.

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.

Sure. If only there was some tool we could use to randomize the results to allow for this. It would be ideal if the tool was small and could be held in hand and cast onto a table so that the results could be easily seen by all participants.

If only!

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.

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.

Numbers don't break immersion nearly as much as not being able to accurately understand the scenario. When that happens, I'm immediately reminded that I'm removed from the situation.

A mistake in perception can be represented by the dice. This is why your whole idea of "certainty" just doesn't work for me... it's not certain because we still have to roll the die, and none of us can predict what the roll will be.

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

What is it that's shared that's not based on what the character perceives?

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Oh no the Buddy GM has showed up! Everyone run!!!!!

You'll forgive me for ignoring your advice, bloodtide, given that you admit to not liking many of your players and from what anyone can make out of your posts, many of them can't stand your game.

 

[mamba]

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

we kinda need to track whether someone drops, and I am not interested in doing that for everyone

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.

see above, not interested in doing all that work

Maybe it is a surprise to you, but the right approach might not be at either extreme… I can also spin this the other way and say that you are e.g. not sharing stat blocks with players before they decide to engage or so they can come up with a better tactic

 

[mamba]

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

experienced climbers rarely stand in front of a cliff and only then start estimating their odds, and chances are one of the reasons is that they would frequently get it wrong

 

[BookTenTiger]

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?

I know a lot of folks like to put the DM up on a pedestal, but I see the DM as one of many players. In the games I run and the games I play in, everyone has a voice in what the game should be about.

Let's say the DM has an idea for a story about a dragon invading a kingdom. But the players become more invested in purchasing and running an inn. That means the majority of the table wants to play a game about running an inn, not about fighting a dragon.

When there is a disconnection between the game the DM wants to run, and the game the players want to play, there are a few ways to resolve it:

1) Railroading. The DM can ignore whatever else the characters are doing and just keep charging through their plot.

2) Permissive Play. The DM lets the players do whatever they want, but there's not overarching narrative or escalation of conflicts.

3) Working Together. The DM and players talk about what they want out of the game. The DM provides the framework and runs the world, and the players pursue their goals and make meaningful decisions.


To me, #3 is the most fun, both as a DM and as a player. The DM shouldn't put a ton of work into running a game the players don't want to play. And the players shouldn't be dismissive of the DM as a player of the game. They should all work together to make the game fun.


EDIT: Another thought I had about this is that the DM can use the Inn as a site for adventure hooks, as a stake in adventures, and as a way to reward the characters.

For example, travelers at the Inn could be refugees fleeing towns ravaged by the dragon. The dragon could be on a path towards the city the Inn is built within, putting their business at risk. The characters can use the dragon's hoard to purchase upgrades for their Inn.

 

[pemerton]

we I can also spin this the other way and say that you are e.g. not sharing stat blocks with players before they decide to engage or so they can come up with a better tactic

When I'm GMing Burning Wheel or Torchbearer - the most recent RPGs I've GMed that use obstacles and stat blocks in something like a D&D fashion - I don't share obstacles before the players decide to engage. See my posts 130 and 133 upthread.

 

[pemerton]

experienced climbers rarely stand in front of a cliff and only then start estimating their odds

Is this true?

 

[mamba]

Is this true?

yes, you have a good idea going in, you know the cliff face, you know what paths people generally take, you know the official difficulty of the various sections and what specific problems you will face

That, or we are talking about hobbyists that stay away from these kinds of cliffs and basically do a slightly more challenging hike - or experienced ones when they can tell the cliff is a DC 5 for them

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why not both a description and the rules?



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.



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.

I don't think it's silly at all. One of your motivations for revealing target numbers at all times is to prevent the DM from taking sketchy actions. That implies a lack of trust, which tells me you must not like DMs much if you assume they're going to abuse any power they have.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

This is the difference between a Roll Playing Game and a Role Playing Game. You can play a game just fine with all rules and rolls....just like say many board games like Monopoly. You can have your "nameless token character" move forward one square and have Encounter Two, and so on. In such a game you would just say "the goblin has an AC of 11 and five hit points" and so on. You don't need to name your character, have a back ground, or do anything not just the pure rules.

Or you can Role Play...as in a Role Play game: You do have some rules to ground the game as a game, but the primary focus is much more on role play. All the sorts of things you can do when you leave the rules behind.

experienced climbers rarely stand in front of a cliff and only then start estimating their odds, and chances are one of the reasons is that they would frequently get it wrong

Experienced climbers......really anyone with even a couple brain cells and common sense...generally do things carefully and with safety foremost in mind. And when a person goes to do a task, you will do what you think will best do it. As in real life you can't ever know the DC to do anything.

When there is a disconnection between the game the DM wants to run, and the game the players want to play, there are a few ways to resolve it:

1) Railroading. The DM can ignore whatever else the characters are doing and just keep charging through their plot.

So I say this as The Hardcore Railroad Tycoon Baron of the 'Net........not only is this not a "solution" to anything, but it's a very bad idea.

2) Permissive Play. The DM lets the players do whatever they want, but there's not overarching narrative or escalation of conflicts.

Seems pointless. And why is it wrong to force the players to do something they don't want, but it is ok to force a DM to do something they don't want to do? I though you said the DM and players were equal? Then this type of play is just as wrong as (your view) of Railroading play. Correct?

3) Working Together. The DM and players talk about what they want out of the game. The DM provides the framework and runs the world, and the players pursue their goals and make meaningful decisions.

This is the default.

But this does not answer the question. Ok, everyone all agrees to play D&D 5E and if you must have the limited focus game, everyone agrees to do the Undead Army Story Plot. Ok: everyone agreed to that.

So your example was the players....just randomly say "ok day...we want to buy an inn and run the inn and do all sorts of inn related stuff". So.....then the players are wrong to "just do this in a game, right?" I mean it's one thing to show up on game night and call a Special Meeting to say "we the players with to officially declare that we will stop playing D&D 5E and now wish to play Inns and Outs, the Hospitality Management RPG!" But for the players to just buy and inn, or take any other such "side" action in the game is WRONG. Right?

So the DM is 100% right when the messenger shows up with the "ok, lets forget about your dumb inn and get back to the game....the undead army as been spotted near the coast"