I want my actions to matter

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

I'm always intrigued by these threads.

I'm not saying I've never ran into any of the issues where DM and players (or between player) expectations are mismatched leading to bad gaming. But some of these read like this has been going on for years or forever?

I don't think I'd continue playing. If a reasonable discussion can't bring people into some fair agreement then why bother playing together? The benefit of TTRPGs is the flexibility and creativity they provide, which even under tight rulesets still requires some basic trust and cooperation.

And I know some people have limited options to find groups, but imo no gaming is better than a lot of the situations being described.

 

[Lanefan]

I've always wanted to stat up a tribe of Foolish Consistency Hobgoblins who speak "Prescriptive Goblinoid" and whose society strongly values doing things the "right way." You think Devils and their contracts are the epitome of Lawful Evil? Nah, wait until you encounter my Foolish Consistency Tribe!

What's hilarious about this for me is that my Hobgoblin societies have been like that since about 1986.

 

[tetrasodium]

Did you not read what I just wrote? Its abundantly clear what I wrote and it doesn't churn out "I personally have some degree of proficiency in climbing." It is a claim with supporting statements and a conclusion about the realities of climbers. I routinely climb with dozens and dozens and dozens of people from intermediate skill to expert skill. None of us/them can send a world class climb...but every single one of them can look at one and develop the climbing beta to navigate it and put a difficulty on the climb within a very small margin of error (which is a DC in D&D). Every Fighter in D&D who is trained in Athletics would have some ability here because possessing Athletics means they have exposure to/prowess in climbing, jumping, swimming and activities that cover the physical/cognitive/technical prowess/tools that Athletics entails.

This is an opportunity for you to correct the wrong or made up things you're saying (included in which is that you need to tackle this on page 175 of the 5e PHB):

View attachment 341996

It's precisely because Athletics is a generalist catchall rather than a specialized area of experience & skill like a climb skill would be. Also remember that this tangent came up because someone said a proficient* character should automatically know the DC

*iirc "expert climber" was the term

 

[BookTenTiger]

It's precisely because Athletics is a generalist catchall rather than a specialized area of experience & skill like a climb skill would be. Also remember that this tangent came up because someone said a proficient* character should automatically know the DC

*iirc "expert climber" was the term

As a DM I'm just as likely to give the DC to any character, not just those that are proficient.

Me: The ancient wall of the building is made from loose, crumbling stones. Thorny vines grow in patches. It's a DC 18 to climb the wall without falling, and you'll have to make a Dex Saving Throw to avoid those thorns.

EDIT: Actually, thinking about this more, I usually don't give a DC until the player declares their intentions:

Me: The ancient wall of the building is made from loose, crumbling stones. Thorny vines grow in patches.

Fighter: How difficult would it be to climb?

Me: It's a DC 18 Athletics check to climb the wall without falling, and you'll have to make a Dex Saving Throw to avoid those thorns.

 

[Irlo]

It's precisely because Athletics is a generalist catchall rather than a specialized area of experience & skill like a climb skill would be. Also remember that this tangent came up because someone said a proficient* character should automatically know the DC

*iirc "expert climber" was the term

The 5e skill system doesn’t prevent a character from being an expert climber. But it’s true that one can’t be an expert climber without also being an expert jumper and an expert swimmer.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's precisely because Athletics is a generalist catchall rather than a specialized area of experience & skill like a climb skill would be. Also remember that this tangent came up because someone said a proficient* character should automatically know the DC

*iirc "expert climber" was the term

Actually, I said the player should know the DC. The character knows what they’re looking at, which should give them an idea of how difficult it would be. We translate that idea into a DC so the player can make an informed decision.

Whether or not the character is an expert climber doesn’t really have to do with the DC, but rather with their Strength Attribute and Athletics Proficiency. Which is a number known to the player.

 

[bloodtide]

There is in charge of the game, then there is treating the game likes its only there for your enjoyment, regardless of what pleasure the other players of the game (of which you are one) might derive from it. Your posts are indicating you are in the latter camp. What you want matters, and what others want doesn't. You dress that up as 'I am the DM, so that's okay'. Others here are telling you that it really isn't okay.

I think we are talking about different things.

What you are calling the players 'running wild' is them wanting to derive a little pleasure and have some agency in the game they have agreed to participate in. You overriding everything the players do so that you can advance the story you have crafted is you 'running wild', to use your terminology.

Right, DM has to walk a line....but players can do what they want.

f this is an accurate description of your game, it needs fixing. You are basically saying that no one has a clue or likely ever will get one, all players just stumble around in the dark.

No wonder they think that their actions do not matter

Only the Casual and Bad players.

Average and Good players read the game handouts, for example.

IMO if going off on that tangent is what the characters would do then by definition it cannot be wrong.

Guess I'm not a "the players are always right" kind of DM.

Because part of the DM's job is to hit the curveballs the players throw.

Odd that is not true for the players, right?

As DM I'm duty bound to follow where the characters lead - in this case it was into a boardroom - as it's just another curveball I have to hit. I didn't expect it to go on nearly as long as it did, though.

Well, that sure is not my "duty".

Though I would STILL ask the reverse: WHY is it not the players DUTY to follow the DMs lead?

@bloodtide I'm just going to say that as a DM I would be delighted if the characters in my campaign bought an inn, adopted a baby, wanted to rob a bank... Because it would mean that they were engaged in the campaign world.

I'd be delighted if the players engaged in the game. For a player of a Draconioan Warlock character to say "Yuck yuck, my character wants to be an inn keeper. What is the DC to make a bed. Hehe. Do I need to make a check to put the mint on the pillow?"

But again, if the players would say "we want to stop playing D&D and play Inns and Outs, The Hospitality RPG" I'd be all for it.

And now we have some great new adventures to play.

That is a great story.

Though again I'd ask why it's only one way?

On the slightest whim of the players the DM must bow down and say to the players "yes, players whatever you want". But if the DM even suggests something and the players will refuse to do it and whine about "how there actions must matter".

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

I think we are talking about different things.

We're not IMO. You seem to be exhibiting a certain level of misanthropy towards your players, whether you realise it or not. You act like you are smarter/more experienced/wiser than they are. The disdain you show your fellow human beings is not going to get you very far, in any arena of life. If you treat others as equals, you might find you like the results. When you find yourself in a situation where everyone but you seems to be the problem, odds are that you've misread that situation.

Right, DM has to walk a line....but players can do what they want.

You're really colouring our responses in a way that fits your preconceptions. Maybe don't do that, and you might benefit from these questions that you ask.

Guess I'm not a "the players are always right" kind of DM.

Guess you are really misunderstanding the basics of this situation.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
This discussion is becoming very personal.
That's a great way to end up with someone insulted, or have the conversation turn it into an argument.
So, how about we stop making this about the people who are speaking, and more about what they say, please and thanks.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I think we are talking about different things.

Right, DM has to walk a line....but players can do what they want.


Only the Casual and Bad players.

Average and Good players read the game handouts, for example.


Guess I'm not a "the players are always right" kind of DM.

Odd that is not true for the players, right?



Well, that sure is not my "duty".

Though I would STILL ask the reverse: WHY is it not the players DUTY to follow the DMs lead?


I'd be delighted if the players engaged in the game. For a player of a Draconioan Warlock character to say "Yuck yuck, my character wants to be an inn keeper. What is the DC to make a bed. Hehe. Do I need to make a check to put the mint on the pillow?"

But again, if the players would say "we want to stop playing D&D and play Inns and Outs, The Hospitality RPG" I'd be all for it.


That is a great story.

Though again I'd ask why it's only one way?

On the slightest whim of the players the DM must bow down and say to the players "yes, players whatever you want". But if the DM even suggests something and the players will refuse to do it and whine about "how there actions must matter".

One thing to consider is that, by default, the DM does lead the story. The times a DM might be finding conflict are when the players don't have buy-in. In those times, one way to resolve the conflict is to shift the focus of the game to something the players are more interested in.

In my view, it's not the DM's job to tell a story. It's their job to place obstacles in the way of PC goals, and then react to the decisions players and their characters make. Sometimes that means the players are really excited about what the DM has presented, and go with it. Sometimes it means they take wild tangents or try something new.

A clearer example may be something smaller and more granular:

A DM has created a dungeon. A room has two doors, an open left door and a locked right door. The DM initially plans on the characters going through the open left door in order to find a key that opens the right door. The DM has placed some interesting monsters, traps, and plot points through that last door.

Instead, the characters choose to pick the lock, or cast Knock, or break down the right door.

Should the DM force them through the left door because that's the story they want to tell? Or should they adapt to the choices of the characters?