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

[Nagol]

Yeah, I agree with most of that. I think the ogre should have to make some sort of attack roll to hit the PC with the Tree...I just don't think I'd bother rolling a STR check to see if he could knock the tree down. I'd just say he could do it because I think it would make for a more dynamic situation than simply having him try to club them over and over.



I don't think letting the ogre have this "cool" attack does anything to diminish the PCs. Saying a PC can't knock down a tree that an ogre can isn't limiting to the PCs. Nor do I think that such a decision lends itself to favoring a certain playstyle on the part of the player.



I mean, this example is purely for an NPC Monster. I would actually think most players would see an ogrekbocking a tree down at them as pretty exciting and not as something negative.

A player can be discouraged after seeing a cool move used if they are told "Not for you! It doesn't matter that you are stronger than an ogre and the same size, I don't think you should be allowed to shine like this".

I wouldn't be too concerned about that. If the ogre was actually a storm giant in magical disguise of some sort, I'm still capable of having the "ogre" display a feat of strength beyond what he should be capable of, and thereby giving the hint I wanted to. Or I can use some other method to give the hint...have him mutter a curse in another language or use a speech pattern that didn't fit with an ogre.

For many people, an ogre pushing down a tree in a single round (since multi-hundred horsepower tractors can't pull the things down in less than 5 minutes AND it takes more than 6 seconds for a cut tree to fall) IS displaying a strength the ogre shouldn't have. So the players at the table: are they going "Cool!" or are they going "Hmm, what's going on? Is it just the DM playing around or is something we should have caught? Quick! Are there other clues we overlooked?"

I mean trust to act as an impartial referee, not trust as a friend. In general, I feel that trust in a DM to be fair means you don't have to rely so much on the math. The DM's fair judgment is the only formula needed in such a case. I'm not saying that everything should be left up to the DM's whim...but almost any game is going to require the DM to make some judgments. So trust in those instances can be huge.

Sure I trust my GMs making judgements inside the games we agree to play; that's their role. Because I trust them to operate within those parameters that using the rule of cool in a game designed without it is so jarring for me as a player. I'm the guy constantly looking for discrepancies -- not to hoist the DM on his petard, but to use to discover hidden features that are either neat or advantageous in the game world.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Beating a dead horse:

On that thread I made the point that 5e combat doesn't use bounded accuracy in the same way as ability checks do, because hp and damage both scale dramatically with level. So it is easy to set combat tasks which a 1st level character has almost no chance at but a 20th level character is almost guaranteed to succeed at (eg beat up a hill giant - I haven't run the maths, though on the old thread I remember running it for a pit fiend - I'm just relying on intuition here).

It's not really so much about scaling with level--the combat task I mentioned (punching a bound and gagged guy into unconsciousness in less than a minute) assumes 0th level characters.

What really makes things works differently is the fact that more rolls = more bell curve = more effect of skill (to-hit, damage bonuses) and other modifiers (AC).

There is absolutely nothing stopping a DM from using the exact same approach out of combat. If you want a more skill-oriented task but you don't want auto-success for anyone, use more die rolls, either by chaining checks (you need to perceive the trap's telltale with Perception DC 12 AND deduce the telltale's meaning and the trap's existence with Investigation DC 15 AND Disarm it with Thieves Tools DC 9) or outright asking for multiple attempts (to climb this 50' cliff, you must spend five minutes and succeed on a DC 10 Strength (Athletics) check per 10' climbed; ordinary failure means you make no progress and must re-try; failure by five or more means you fall).

You can create any probability curve you want, in or out of combat. Combat isn't special.

 

[Satyrn]

I could readily see a PC fighter getting angry that his character couldn't even attempt to knock over a tree, if the ogre can.

If we're talking about a human with a high strength, I'd tell the player he's lacking a fundamental property of the ogre -the massive size. If he can remedy that, then he can push over trees, too. Without checks.

Or maybe the player can find another solution, like gaining a supernatural strength that lets him defy his small size. Then he could push over all the trees he wants that way, too.

I mean, all I see him getting out of this is few toppled trees and, if we're talking about combat, a few interesting attacks.

But then, I aim for cinematic, and I know this won't work for other people.


Edit - Okay, weird. I'm not actually quoting myself here, somehow I've attributed someone else's comments to me.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm asking if you believe either or both of those things? I get the impression you distrust your GM by default, but I don't think this is a common viewpoint especially among new players. And I think
5e is built around an assumption of GM trust and GM empowerment, probably as a reaction against 3e.

I don't think that new players distrust their new DMs. I don't however think a new DM starts off with a large credibility balance, especially for someone who is new to 5E and/or roleplaying in general. You have to earn credibility by providing a satisfying experience.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I disagree. Determining certainty or uncertainty is fundamentally no different than determining the DC... with poor granularity. If I say that flying requires a DC 50 Athletics check, or I say that it's impossible to fly by flapping your arms, then those statements are effectively identical unless you somehow have +30 to Athletics. Note that the example of an impossible check is literally shooting the moon; it's not something you need to evaluate carefully in determining the DC in order to know that the DC is unreachable.

If something is impossible, then that just means the DC is so high that there's no point in rolling. If something is automatic, then that means the DC would be so low that there's no point in rolling. Any attempt to determine certainty or uncertainty by another method is prone to introducing inconsistencies, where the DM says the outcome is guaranteed and the game mechanics would disagree.

For example, if a door can be automatically kicked down by someone with Strength 20, but someone with Strength 10 cannot possibly kick it down, then that's a situation which is inconsistent with the mechanics that would otherwise apply. Effectively, you would be creating DM fiat as an entirely separate mode of gameplay, rather than having it work together with the ability check system, and the outcome of any situation would depend on which ruleset the DM decides to invoke. (Which goes back to the players not knowing what the rules are, and the game being unplayable.)

But we've already disproved this theory of difficulty. A standing long-jump of 5' is automatic for someone with Strength 20; it's highly uncertain and maybe impossible for someone with Strength 6; there is no DC you can assign which will reproduce that probability curve using 5E modifiers. Ergo, judgments as to uncertainty and probability curves must happen before choosing a DC, not after. Asking for one or more ability checks with a given DC is an exercise in fitting a mechanical probability curve to the DM's intuitive judgment as to the proper probability curve, when the DM has already determined that the outcome is stochastic.

But 5E is explicit that the DM doesn't have to make every outcome stochastic, and for a non-stochastic outcome there is no DC and no roll. It's not "DC Too High For You To Reach". There is no DC.

 

[Satyrn]

This is how Marvel Heroic RP handles this sort of thing. But I think it's a bit more contentious in a system like 5e, which has STR scores and DCs for STR checks and the like.

I mean, should we be worried that the ogre can push over the tree as part of an attack but not as part of a systematic forestry team? (Or if the ogre can push over trees all day long, but the ability score rules say that it can't, then what are those rules for?)

To me, and following on from my reply just above to Saelorn, I wonder what the criteria for certain/uncertain are meant to be.

Contentious here, maybe, but not when I'm playing. Although I do sometimes make decisions I regret afterward, they're rare, and learning experiences for me.

Nor am I worried about an ogre employed as a lumberjack, first because that sounds like an interesting storyhook, but also because I don't really see it as fundamentally different than four guys using axes. I wouldn't use ability scores and checks for a lumberjack's daily labour, so I'm not going to use it for an ogre's.

For me, ability checks are used in the course of adventure, not labour. And that is also how I view pretty much every rule in the game. They apply to the heroes on an adventure and the challenges they encounter. I don't look to them to figure out how the mundane day to day world works.

My criteria for certain/uncertain seem to essentially be "is this reasonably believable?" and "will it be more fun if if I roll or not, and where?"

I say that, because with the ogre example my mind immediately leaps to "yeah, sure of course an ogre should be able to push over a tree" - and gauging from he conversation here most if not everyone thinks they could in a game playec cinematically, so I feel confident in that decision.

And should I roll? Outside of combat, with time to spare, no, I wouldn't because that's a waste of time to my mind. In combat, there ought to be roll, that's nearly an automatic decision. But where? If the ogre is trying to block the path, then that might be the only place for a roll, so there it goes as a Strength check (DC 15).

But if he's pushing it over onto the PC's then it might as well be an attack roll or a save because it ought to be more fun if the roll relates directly to the players. And when I'm sufficiently clever while DMing this scene, I'll "pause" combat momentarily -step out of the cyclic initiative stuff - to say to those players under and around the tree "the tree is falling swiftly down upon you or your friends, what do you do?" To those who say they dodge out of the way I give a Dex Save, against those who blankly stare at me I make an attack roll (or just automatically hit), meanwhile to those who would try to push the tree aside I give a Strength save and those true Strong Heroes who would try to push the tree back onto the ogre I'd give an opposed Strength check.

That's what Ability score rules are for to me.

 

[Satyrn]

A player can be discouraged after seeing a cool move used if they are told "Not for you! It doesn't matter that you are stronger than an ogre and the same size, I don't think you should be allowed to shine like this".

Yes, that certainly would be discouraging. I've even made mistakes like that as DM, and I hope I've learned to never say anything like that to a player again.

 

[Rhenny]

I don't think that new players distrust their new DMs. I don't however think a new DM starts off with a large credibility balance, especially for someone who is new to 5E and/or roleplaying in general. You have to earn credibility by providing a satisfying experience.

Providing a satisfying experience is key. That's why I think game mechanics that make it easier for the DM to adapt and adjust to player expectations is more important than creating game mechanics that limit expectations and force absolutes. I'm happy 5E philosophy recognizes that different players have different expectations.

Once the DM understands the player expectations, then consistency and reliably ruling with those expectations in mind is critical.

 

[JonnyP71]

In my experience, players learn to call the DM out when DMs try to cheat, and they become alert against such attempts due to past history with DMs who cheat. As a DM, you should avoid even the appearance of cheating, until you know your players well enough that they can trust you. Once you have their trust, it's okay to do things that look like cheating, and they'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm a DM
I cheat
I hide dice rolls
I sometimes don't bother rolling when I should by RAW
I sometimes ignore my own hidden dice rolls
I sometimes adjust encounter statistics on the fly
My players don't have a problem with it...

Because:
1) It's my role to create and adjudicate a game that is fun, exciting, and challenging
2) My players know this
3) I aim to consistently give them #1
4) I want my players to succeed in the long term
5) My players know this also

 

[hawkeyefan]

The rules can be different, as long as they exist and are knowable. Otherwise, it's just the DM making stuff up and expecting the players to go along with it, when they have no way of knowing what makes sense or not.

Whether an ogre can knock over a tree, or not, can't just be a matter of genre convention. Different people have different expectations about how the the world should work, and the rules in the book exist so that we can all be on the same page about what exactly makes sense for the world. Without some sort of rules to cover this situation, the player can't play their character, because they have no idea what sort of world they're living in.

I don't know if I agree that this example would be so disruptive to immersion within the fictional world. I understand your point, but I don't think that having the ogre function differently in some ways than PCs is all that big a deal. I mean, certainly there are creatures in the world that can do things the PCs cannot do. There is presumably some creature out there that can knock the tree down...a dragon or a storm giant or a titan, what have you...and it sounds like most folks would accept it in those cases.

So the issue seems to stem from the fact that the players KNOW that the ogre has a 19 STR and that so do they (or so one or two of them may have). So if that is the issue...the perceived parity of STR between the PC and the ogre...then for me the answer is to eliminate that expected parity.

I don't think this is removing the rules of the fictional world so much as it is redefining them. Such a redefinition may or may not be suitable or accepted by the group....so I certainly am not saying this is an approach for everyone. I just don't think that we need to adhere to such clearly defined mechanics at all times.

This is an interesting take.

As far as the ogre/PC reciprocity is concerned, PCs can become large via spells, potions etc so I'm not sure that solves all the issues.

I'd treat a PC who grew to large size through magic in much the same way, I think. Just let the tree be knocked over...let the chance of failure or success in the scenario stem from whether the tree hits the intended target. No need to double the amount of checks required.

But the idea that an ogre's STR stat is there only to manage combat stats is interesting. It's almost the inverse of AD&D, where an ogre's 18/00 STR didn't inform it's combat stats at all (attack as a 4+ HD monster, for 1d10 or weapon+2) but did inform it's out-of-combat abilities. One reason AD&D could go for ogre/PC parity in this respect was because it used non-linear bonuses (eg via Bend Bars or "open wizard locked doors" chances) and because very few PCs could get to 18/00 STR without becoming enchanted beings by using wishes, magic books and/or gauntlest/girdles. In other words, letting an AD&D character roll the chance to force a wizard locked door as the chance to knock down a big tree won't create any issues, because only those with STR 18/91 or better have any chance at all, ogres only have a 2 in 6 chance, and there are no retries.

Bounded accuracy + linear bonus progression changes all this. And so creates this pressure to divorce the ogre's capabilities from its ability scores. Which is what 4e did, by locating a lot of this stuff in "powers", and by using "genre logic" rather than "objective DCs" as the gateway to improved stuff.

Yeah, I think with 5E, the math seems mostly based on combat and with bounded accuracy in mind. I really don't think that the designers intended for an ogre to be limited to human level feats of STR. I mean, looking at the appearance of the ogre as depicted in the Monster Manual certainly doesn't give me the impression of a creature whose strength is equal to that of a very strong man.

I see a distinction in a STR score for creatures of varying size. I do t think that's a problem overall, nor that it must lead to inconsistency. I think that it's just a matter of putting some of this on the DM rather than in another area, like the powers of 4E as you mention.

A player can be discouraged after seeing a cool move used if they are told "Not for you! It doesn't matter that you are stronger than an ogre and the same size, I don't think you should be allowed to shine like this".

I can see the problem with that in general, sure. I don't know if I think it applies in this instance since PCs are not the same size as ogres. Not without some kind of magic...in which case let the PC succeed because hey, magic!

But I think this view also implies there should be nothing that the PCs see an NPC or monster do that they cannot, no? So I don't know if this is a real strong way of looking at the issue. Some creatures can and should be able to do things that the PCs cannot. And vice versa, of course.

For many people, an ogre pushing down a tree in a single round (since multi-hundred horsepower tractors can't pull the things down in less than 5 minutes AND it takes more than 6 seconds for a cut tree to fall) IS displaying a strength the ogre shouldn't have. So the players at the table: are they going "Cool!" or are they going "Hmm, what's going on? Is it just the DM playing around or is something we should have caught? Quick! Are there other clues we overlooked?"

This is true, but again I think this all relies on a good deal of meta knowledge and then using that in play. Obviously, for games that have already established how all this works, it would be harder to adjust. But for players who don't know that the ogre has a 19 STR, or those who aren't as concerned about the mechcanical implications of that 19, it's likely not an adjustment at all.

Sure I trust my GMs making judgements inside the games we agree to play; that's their role. Because I trust them to operate within those parameters that using the rule of cool in a game designed without it is so jarring for me as a player. I'm the guy constantly looking for discrepancies -- not to hoist the DM on his petard, but to use to discover hidden features that are either neat or advantageous in the game world.

I don't know if the rule of cool is something barred from the game. It's not specifically referenced on the books, but there are plenty of areas where it or something like it seems to be implied. Plenty of times where DM judgment is not just recommended, but absolutely required.