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

[FormerlyHemlock]

How many people play with GMs they don't trust and don't regard as having credibility? This is obviously not the market 5e is going for.

Seriously, "How many people ever play 5E for the first time with a new DM?" How many people haven't done that?

It seems unlikely that 5E wants to ignore that market, since 5E is the "Big Tent" edition which aims to be broadly accessible and bring in new players.

Besides, this thread AFAIK isn't about 5E's goals as a product--it's about your goals as a DM. The caveat here is, "If your players are into Fantasy (immersion) as one of their types of fun, don't do this thing on a regular basis unless you show your work." If your players are more the gamist type who like Abnegation via combat or narrative drama, then you don't need to worry about it, you can do it as much as you want just because it's Cool.

Quoting Steve Brust about his Dragaera novels:

The Cool Stuff Theory of Literature is as follows: All literature consists of whatever the writer thinks is cool. The reader will like the book to the degree that he agrees with the writer about what's cool. And that works all the way from the external trappings to the level of metaphor, subtext, and the way one uses words. In other words, I happen not to think that full-plate armor and great big honking greatswords are cool. I don't like 'em. I like cloaks and rapiers. So I write stories with a lot of cloaks and rapiers in 'em, 'cause that's cool. Guys who like military hardware, who think advanced military hardware is cool, are not gonna jump all over my books, because they have other ideas about what's cool.

The novel should be understood as a structure built to accommodate the greatest possible amount of cool stuff.

I would say exactly the same thing about a D&D game. The adventure should be understood as a structure built to accomodate the greatest possible amount of cool stuff, as judged by the standards of the DM and his implicit or explicit target audience. (But it must always​ be cool to the DM himself or he won't have fun running it, and a DM who isn't having fun is in major trouble.)

Edit: on the theory that tagging your product with keywords describing the cool bits is a way to connect published adventures with their target audience, I just searched DM's Guild for "Cloaks and Rapiers" and came up totally empty. "Beholders" gets me a bunch of older edition products, some of which I already own, none of them actual 5E adventures. But! "Mind Flayers" gets me one product (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/172230/Monsternomicon-Mind-Flayers) about a topic that I find cool. I will check this out. Also, no hits for "Baatezu" but one hit for "Pit Fiend"(http://www.dmsguild.com/product/196987/ART916-Devil-Pit-Fiend) and a bunch of stuff on traps, of which this one jumps out (http://www.dmsguild.com/product/200563/Grandmaster-Thief--Mechanical-Traps) due to having a realistic take on traps in the Full Preview. I find realism cool, so I will buy that.

This is the blurb that grabbed me:

Traps! Not puzzles. This isn't about solving a riddle. No trap designer worth their salt would tell you how to get past their security measures, however obscure the clues may be.

This is about being diabolical in your mechanical trap design. No runes to worry about, nothing to dispel, and no magical resistance to save you.

I find that quite cool, although I also find ridiculous gamist riddle-traps/puzzle-traps cool too if they can somehow be made realistic. (E.g. they were made by Trap Gremlins.)

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm going to try to get some responses up later this evening but I'm pretty pressed for time. I just wanted to relay my impetus for creating this thread:

1) To "show my work" in my understanding of the developers systemization of Ability Checks generally and specifically those of NPCs.

2) On the other Ogre thread, there was a common refrain (one specifically focused at me) to just let the Ogre do whatever you felt he should do, genre-wise (you're seeing some of that again in this thread). That is precisely how genre logic systems like Dungeon World work, but regards to 5e...well, three things on that:

a) The resolution mechanics disagree that Ogres are capable of that in this edition (in fact they're grossly ill-equipped). So how does "saying yes" to OGRE SMASH interface with (i) the Ability Check system in general (specifically "natural language" and setting DCs, the baseline, and determining uncertainty) and (ii) players with similar SMASH archetypes making like genre logic action declarations for their PCs (eg are those same GMs determining there is no uncertainty and thus "saying yes?")?

b) If the resolution mechanics "say no" from a rules as physics/process sim perspective, yet then GM fiat overrides them, the resultant play is going to be completely unpalatable for players like [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] (the actual two commentors I had in mind).

That is all I have for now.

 

[Ancalagon]

How many people play with GMs they don't trust and don't regard as having credibility? This is obviously not the market 5e is going for.

I'm a bit dismayed that "if the GM says the ogre knocked down a tree it happens and that's ok" isn't something that just well, goes.

What's next?

"These goblins do not have the economic means to obtain metal weapons"
"Based on the local population density, there could not be 12 orcs here, 3-4 at most would be reasonable"
"The oxygen consumption of the drow metropolis would have rendered this area uninhabitable a long time ago"

 

[hawkeyefan]

It's an interesting discussion. I'll say up front that I personally think that this is way much more thought than is needed to come to a decision at the table.

But for the sake of discussion...must we assume that ability checks...and all of the rules that go along with them...are meant to be applied the same to monsters as they are to PCs? Is a 19 STR the same in all ways for a PC as it is for the ogre?

There's nothing in the rules as written to say there is a difference, I know, but I would think a difference would apply. Most likely I'd base this on size....say that carrying capacity and other facets of STR (i.e. STR checks) are greater for larger creatures. Surely a large ogre can carry more than a human, right?

I don't think that applying the rules differently in a case like that would be an abuse of DM fiat. Ultimately, the only reason we see an ogre as having a STR score that is actually within the reach of a PC achieving is to maintain combat numbers...to hit and damage figures, right? But there should be no real reason for the combat numbers to determine all else when it comes to attributes and how they interact with the game world.

I mean, does anyone look at the picture of the ogre in the Monster Manual and expect the feats of STR that such a creature would be capable of to match that of a man? I wouldn't expect so. Therefore, I'd frame my narrative accordingly. Personally, I'd have the ogre succeed without even bothering for a check. My reason being that the rules are there to determine when the PCs succeed or fail, not when the ogre does so.

Obviously, that may not work for everyone. I think such a ruling might come into question when the players know the ogre's stats. Because that number in the STR listing indicates a parity with the PCs. So players may assume that they could then knock over a tree (which should likely be nigh impossible for them) and so forth. For players who are so mechanically inclined, I would simply apply a houserule when it came to STR checks for creatures of Large size or greater; grant them advantage on such checks, and perhaps reduce the DC for checks by 2 for each size category above Medium.

I know that this is not RAW, but I don't think such rulings are in any way outside the DM's role as described in the books.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

b) If the resolution mechanics "say no" from a rules as physics/process sim perspective, yet then GM fiat overrides them, the resultant play is going to be completely unpalatable for players like @Saelorn and @Hemlock (the actual two commentors I had in mind).

I'll note that they would be less unpalatable for me in a campaign with an explicitly cinematic theme. "In this adventure and all future adventures set on Magoria, we're going to be using cinematic rules and movie logic. For example, villains will carry the Idiot Ball whenever necessary, and will torment captured PCs in eminently-escapable James Bond Fashion. For PCs declaring actions, the Rule of Awesome is in play: boring actions will have higher DCs than awesome actions no matter how hard the awesome action should be; despite this, no NPCs will ever attempt awesome actions, especially offscreen, nor intelligently extrapolate creative uses for awesome actions; and the DC for an awesome action will change if it is overused and becomes boring."

If you build the tropes into the setting this way, then I can just consider that part of the gameworld's physics, I guess. If I were running or playing this type of game with friends and family, this is how I would do it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm a bit dismayed that "if the GM says the ogre knocked down a tree it happens and that's ok" isn't something that just well, goes.

What's next?

"These goblins do not have the economic means to obtain metal weapons"
"Based on the local population density, there could not be 12 orcs here, 3-4 at most would be reasonable"
"The oxygen consumption of the drow metropolis would have rendered this area uninhabitable a long time ago"

I wouldn't mind these comments at all. Either I've got good answers for them already, or I'm willing to roll with the punches and adapt on the fly. If the players reason that the goblins do not have the economic means to forge metal weapons, and yet these goblins have metal weapons, I might (1) disagree with them and just let them be wrong--these goblins have a functional economy and are skilled artisans; (2) internally agree with them and, when they try to spy on the goblin clan, arrange for them to catch sight of a weapons delivery from a third party. If they investigate the third party's identity they may learn something exciting or surprising.

 

[Nagol]

I'm a bit dismayed that "if the GM says the ogre knocked down a tree it happens and that's ok" isn't something that just well, goes.

What's next?

"These goblins do not have the economic means to obtain metal weapons"
"Based on the local population density, there could not be 12 orcs here, 3-4 at most would be reasonable"
"The oxygen consumption of the drow metropolis would have rendered this area uninhabitable a long time ago"

Typically, the first person it doesn't work for is the DM himself. It certainly doesn't for me as DM. If one critter can perform such a stunt then any similar critter* should be able to perform a similar stunt and thus the mechanics underpinning the game should make such a stunt possible and a reasonable course of action. If I am dictating stunts that the mechanics don't make possible and a reasonable course of action, I'm probably running the wrong game.


If I am playing in a game and the GM likes pulling stunts in that form, I'll evaluate if it is merely worthy of an eye-roll or whether I should discover "other commitments" for that time slot. It damages my enjoyment, but it certainly not a game killer in and of itself.



* including the PCs with appropriately similar stats -- like a STR 18-20 Fighter under an Enlarge effect.

 

[S'mon]

Seriously, "How many people ever play 5E for
the first time with a new DM?" How many people haven't done that?

Are you saying first time players don't trust their new GM? That's not my experience. Distrust IME
is something that gets taught over time by experience with a bad GM. I don't see
players go into a new game not trusting a new GM to set DCs or whatever.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Are you saying first time players don't trust their new GM?

I too thought that [MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION]'s comment made it sound as though it was being said that either, or both, new players cannot trust their DM, or new DMs inherently cannot be trusted.

Where as I think that any new player that doesn't trust the DM introducing the game to be giving the best effort towards an enjoyable experience isn't likely to agree to sit down and play in the first place, and that it general people can choose to default to trusting someone and believing them credible until contrary evidence arises, rather than default to distrust and insisting their trust be earned.

 

[Rhenny]

I wouldn't mind these comments at all. Either I've got good answers for them already, or I'm willing to roll with the punches and adapt on the fly. If the players reason that the goblins do not have the economic means to forge metal weapons, and yet these goblins have metal weapons, I might (1) disagree with them and just let them be wrong--these goblins have a functional economy and are skilled artisans; (2) internally agree with them and, when they try to spy on the goblin clan, arrange for them to catch sight of a weapons delivery from a third party. If they investigate the third party's identity they may learn something exciting or surprising.

I wouldn't mind a comment like this if it were isolated, but I think what Ancalagon is getting at is that when it happens more often, D&D gets reduced to players negotiating, looking for loopholes, parsing the DMs words to manipulate the game, etc. That's when D&D becomes unbearable.

It is an offshoot of the "rules layer" player who disrupts the game.

Going back to the OP, this is one reason why I think a stunt or check system needs to be very simple to follow so that the DM can explain his choice easily if push comes to shove (no pun intended..Ogre and tree).