D&D 5E NPC Ability Checks and Stunting or...Ogre Smash

[FormerlyHemlock]

(Shifting back out of all-caps: PC advancement is intimately connected to making checks - so players are entitled to roll the dice if something meaningful might be at stake.)

This is a really provocative insight. You could say the same thing about PC advancement and 5E combat. With few exceptions, 5E PCs get better at either (1) combat, or (2) making "ability checks". But ability checks aren't a capability, they're just an ill-defined resolution mechanism to be used when the DM demands one, so do players consequently feel more entitled to combat than to exploration or social interaction?

Corollary: Would players feel more entitled to make ability checks if the PHB had the same information on trap lethality/damage and detecting/disarming traps as the DMG?

 

[Rhenny]

You're making this harder than it needs to be. We have more than enough information, just from what is given, to successfully resolve this example.

1) Pushing over a tree would be somewhere between Very Hard and Nearly Impossible for an average person, therefore the DC is in the 25-30 range. (DM discretion applies here.)
2) The ogre has leverage or something, due to being so huge. Circumstantial modifiers in this edition grant Advantage.
3) The ogre has +4 on the check, from Strength.

A) It is impossible to reach DC 25 with only +4 on the check, with or without Advantage. The outcome is certain, and no roll is required.

This makes total sense.

But, if the DM wants the Ogre to knock over the tree, make the tree old and rotted at the base, or anchored in weak soil. Then, just let the Ogre push it over, or if you still think it is uncertain invent a DC and roll for it.

Here's the thing I resent as a DM. If as a DM, I decide that the Ogre can push the tree down, the players shouldn't even question my decision. Why should I have to justify what happens? The players should assume that the tree had unstable roots or it was anchored in weaker soil. Stop putting the burden of proof on the DM. DMs are running games to make it fun for the players. Let them do that. In the ideal world, the DM would telegraph that the tree looked unstable, but sometimes DMs come up with interesting ideas after the initial description of a setting. Also, there are many situations that don't always reveal their secrets - not everything can be seen/known (In real life, I was once walking through a wooded area and when I leaned on a small tree to rest, it did in fact, fall over!!! - it happens). Players, work with your DMs.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You're making this harder than it needs to be. We have more than enough information, just from what is given, to successfully resolve this example.

1) Pushing over a tree would be somewhere between Very Hard and Nearly Impossible for an average person, therefore the DC is in the 25-30 range. (DM discretion applies here.)
2) The ogre has leverage or something, due to being so huge. Circumstantial modifiers in this edition grant Advantage.
3) The ogre has +4 on the check, from Strength.

A) It is impossible to reach DC 25 with only +4 on the check, with or without Advantage. The outcome is certain, and no roll is required.

I think divorcing the DC of the check from the capabilities of the actor is wrongheaded. Otherwise, for example, flying in calm weather becomes DC Impossible because it's impossible for an average person, which means that sparrows can't fly without beating DC Impossible, which is obviously insane.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Here's the thing I resent as a DM. If as a DM, I decide that the Ogre can push the tree down, the players shouldn't even question my decision. Why should I have to justify what happens? The players should assume that the tree had unstable roots or it was anchored in weaker soil. Stop putting the burden of proof on the DM. DMs are running games to make it fun for the players. Let them do that. In the ideal world, the DM would telegraph that the tree looked unstable, but sometimes DMs come up with interesting ideas after the initial description of a setting. Also, there are many situations that don't always reveal their secrets - not everything can be seen/known (In real life, I was once walking through a wooded area and when I leaned on a small tree to rest, it did in fact, fall over!!! - it happens). Players, work with your DMs.

This only works if the DM has credibility because he actually knows how to build a consistent fantasy world. If I sit down at a table with a DM and he makes a bizarro ruling, my Bayesian analysis says that it's less likely he's an excellent DM with a good reason for showing me something he knows to be bizarro (because there is something weird about the current situation) than that he is a poor DM who has no idea how bizarre the ruling he just made is. In the former case, it's probably a one-time event that can be profitably investigated in-character ("oh, the tree was rotten"); in the latter case, he's probably going to keep on making bizarre rulings that spoil all my fun and make it impossible to forget that I'm playing in his imagination instead of an actual fantasy world.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Here's the thing I resent as a DM. If as a DM, I decide that the Ogre can push the tree down, the players shouldn't even question my decision. Why should I have to justify what happens?

Because the DM is an impartial adjudicator of uncertainty, who is also in charge of playing the NPCs. In order for the game to be fair at all, the rules have to be the same for everyone. (Or, at the very least, differences in the rules have to be known to everyone; you cannot meaningfully play a game if you do not know the rules.)

That's not to say that you can't have an ogre push a tree onto anyone, just that you need to follow consistent rules while doing so. If you decide that it's a DC 19 check that the ogre can attempt, then don't be surprised when the raging barbarian pulls the same trick later on. You should also probably communicate with your players about how easy it is to push over trees, since they're likely to assume that it's impossible (or nearly so) unless you indicate otherwise.

The players should assume that the tree had unstable roots or it was anchored in weaker soil. Stop putting the burden of proof on the DM. DMs are running games to make it fun for the players. Let them do that. In the ideal world, the DM would telegraph that the tree looked unstable, but sometimes DMs come up with interesting ideas after the initial description of a setting. Also, there are many situations that don't always reveal their secrets - not everything can be seen/known (In real life, I was once walking through a wooded area and when I leaned on a small tree to rest, it did in fact, fall over!!! - it happens). Players, work with your DMs.

If the base was weakened and is easier to knock down, then how did the ogre know that before it made the attempt? If it spotted something odd about the tree, and knew enough about nature or survival to know what it meant, then that's one thing - and the players are entitled to similar checks to figure that out. If it had intentionally weakened the tree earlier, so it would be able to do this now, then you can point out to the players that it was way easier than they would have expected for a tree of that size and there must be more to the puzzle that isn't immediately apparent.

Unknowable rules and unexpectable rulings fall under the category of DM Shenanigans.

 

[Ancalagon]

Let the ogre knock down the tree.

1: it's cool/fun

2: The ogre is going to *die*. 95% of the time, ogres get murderized by PCs. Let it knock down the freaking tree. It's its dying wish really. Would you deny a dying child a slice of sugar pie? No. Let the ogre knock down that tree!

Lastly: I, a human being of slightly above average size/strength (I have strength 12 *at best*), have knocked down saplings. Thus, a *freaking ogre* can knock down an average tree.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think divorcing the DC of the check from the capabilities of the actor is wrongheaded. Otherwise, for example, flying in calm weather becomes DC Impossible because it's impossible for an average person, which means that sparrows can't fly without beating DC Impossible, which is obviously insane.

An average person wouldn't attempt to fly in the first place, though, and Impossible is still the correct difficulty for what someone would need on an Athletics check if they wanted to fly with Athletics.

The thing is, we have two numbers involved in every check: the DC, and the modifier. Given that our stated goal is to figure out the success probability of any task, there's no reason why we would need to manipulate both of those. There's no mechanical difference between setting the DC four points lower and giving a +4 bonus to the check. And the way that ability checks are set up, the DC should only be informed by the nature of the task, and the modifier to the check should reflect the ability and training of the one attempting the task; you can actually quote that right out of the Basic Rules document.

You could easily say that anyone can fly with an Athletics check, but it's DC 50 (making it impossible for normal people) and sparrows have a +50 racial bonus to Athletics checks for the purposes of flying. That is how you would translate your example into the rules of the game, even though the text points out that this means nobody ever has to roll because the outcome is always certain (one way or the other).

 

[Rhenny]

[MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]

This always baffles me. If the DM sets the DC, can't he just come up with the idea that the Tree is rotten/in loose earth, and set the DC at DC 10 without telling the players that's what happened (or just rule that the Ogre succeeds). Can't he decide that the Ogre notices that the tree is possibly rotten? Does the DM have to tell the players everything so that they players don't cry "foul"? If the PCs don't expressly say that they are looking at the area around the Ogre to see more of what's there, is the DM supposed to just allow them to make a perception check and tell them about the rotten tree?

In my experience, the idea of DM shenanigans surfaces most when players are looking for ways to call their DM out. When players suspend disbelief enough (as if they were reading a fantasy or science fiction, or even a fictional novel), the experience for players and DMs is much more enjoyable.

In some games, DMs roll the dice behind a screen so that players never even see the results. Do players feel cheated in those games? Some DMs don't even roll dice.

Sure, it is a matter of credibility and shared expectations. I'm just saying that I've had my best sessions as both a player and a DM when the players and the DM have mutual trust and don't ask everything to be explained by the rules. And, I do see how a "bad" Dm, who is adversarial, might frustrate players and lead to dissatisfaction, so it is an issue in some cases.

 

[cmad1977]

Have you seen the strongest man completion? It would not surprise me in the least of one of those dudes knocked over a small tree.
Plus Ogres are taller providing them with superior leverage.

Yes you're overthinking it.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

@Saelorn and @Hemlock

This always baffles me. If the DM sets the DC, can't he just come up with the idea that the Tree is rotten/in loose earth, and set the DC at DC 10 without telling the players that's what happened (or just rule that the Ogre succeeds). Can't he decide that the Ogre notices that the tree is possibly rotten? Does the DM have to tell the players everything so that they players don't cry "foul"? If the PCs don't expressly say that they are looking at the area around the Ogre to see more of what's there, is the DM supposed to just allow them to make a perception check and tell them about the rotten tree?

In my experience, the idea of DM shenanigans surfaces most when players are looking for ways to call their DM out. When players suspend disbelief enough (as if they were reading a fantasy or science fiction, or even a fictional novel), the experience for players and DMs is much more enjoyable.

In some games, DMs roll the dice behind a screen so that players never even see the results. Do players feel cheated in those games? Some DMs don't even roll dice.

Sure, it is a matter of credibility and shared expectations. I'm just saying that I've had my best sessions as both a player and a DM when the players and the DM have mutual trust and don't ask everything to be explained by the rules. And, I do see how a "bad" Dm, who is adversarial, might frustrate players and lead to dissatisfaction, so it is an issue in some cases.

Rhenny, yes, the DM could do that, with his eyes open and knowing full well that the DC is unusually low/task is unusually easy. (As Saelorn points out, he'd also want to have some kind of reason in mind that the ogre knew the tree to be rotten; because the game world is infinite-resolution, it is possible that the explanation may come to the players' attention at some point.) That would come under the heading of "excellent DM who is doing something bizarre on purpose." My experience leads me to believe that the other explanation is usually more likely in the general case; so I probably wouldn't stick with a DM who did this kind of thing right off the bat. But if the DM had previously established credibility with me, he can get away with more.

You can't ask for suspension of disbelief on the one hand and do things that actively destroy it on the other. (This is as true of fantasy novels and science fiction as RPGs.) If I hated the movie Interstellar because the physics was so obviously wrong, you can't just tell me to "suspend disbelief." Or rather you can tell me that, but to no avail--I'm still not going to watch your movie again, and I probably won't watch another movie by the same writer/director either.

As an aside, yes, rolling dice behind a screen can create suspicion and ruin fun too. I'm surprised you even ask that question in a tone that implies you think it never happens.