See, I tend to get a bit... shirty when DM's start doing this.
I tend to get up and walk away from the table when PC's take that attitude, and generally tell them I have no desire to be their DM ever again. I've got no desire to waste my time on that sort of anti-social BS. I gave that crap up in junior high.
The only real reason that the checks are being forced is because you want me to "slog my way through the desert".
Wrong. The real reason that the checks are being made is because they are suitable to enriching the imaginary situation at hand, which is, "What would it be like to ride on the back of a gigantic centipede?" You see, what is really at stake here is the question not of whether I will allow propositions, because I will, but whether I will allow dictated outcomes - which I won't. I _love_ the solution of conjuring a giant centipede to cross the desert. It's evocative, fantastic, and memorable. But I want to take those strengths and dwell on the crossing itself, the difficulties both small and great and the ultimate (desirable) triumph resulting from the plan. Whereas the PC who gets 'shirty' really is the sort of ego gamer that wants to dictate to the DM not what he proposes to do but what actually happens, and believes the the DM exists only to validate his awesomeness by saying, "Yes, sir.", to whatever he imagines is the answer to a problem. I really have no desire to deal with a players emotional issues and the chips on his shoulder that he's bringing to the table because of past conflicts with other DMs. I have no desire to deal with the entire DM vs. players attitude that sees 'conjuring a centipede' as winning, that not only sees it as defeating the DM but expects the DM to see it as being defeated, and treats any attempt by the DM to roll with that situation and integrate it into the game play as the DM cheating the player out of their 'victory'. If that is the way you think, find a different table.
And, the DM will simply rule against the party until the checks are made.
What the heck does that mean? What do you mean 'rule against the party'? Is this a contest? And isn't, 'Make a skill check.', actually the ruling? In what sense is that 'against the party'? This is basic 'Say yes and roll the dice' DMing. And what is it that you percieve as being 'against the party' prior to the check being made anyway? See fundamentally there is the assumption here that DM's aren't impartial, that they are rooting against the players, and that the DM's fundamentally see there job as ruining the players fun where the players fun is described as dictating to the DM successful outcomes and recieving validation of their universal brilliance.
I mean, how hard would it really be to tie yourself to the creature if it's really that hard to ride?
I don't know. You tell me what you plan to do. Meanwhile, describe what you want to do, make a Use Rope check, and I'll note the concrete situation involved here - you are tied down to a gigantic scurrying creature - in case this concrete fact is relevant later either for avoiding difficulty or complicating a situation.
Like I said, I figured that crossing the wasteland Fremen (Dune) style was totally cool.
It is totally cool. As I said, I love it. In what way does it stop being totally cool if the drawf cleric falls off occasionally, or we role play out a situation where the centipede charges into and out of a gully and leaves the party grasping at antenna and legs to keep from sliding off? Do you think that I imagine those situations simply to create unnecessary difficulty? There is an implicit assumption here that if you'd conjured giant eagles, that I'd conjure a red dragon to 'counter' you and that somehow talking about skill checks is me taking frustration out on the players rather than me trying to make the game fun.
But, then the DM steps in and starts forcing skill checks until we fail. I hate this sort of thing with a passion to be honest.
Yeah, me too. Tell you what. Let's not game together ever.
The fact that I've come up with a way to hand wave our way across the desert should be a giant glowing neon sign that I don't want to piss about slogging across the desert. We have a goal. We're not exploring.
Sorry, you as a player don't get to dictate what my game is to me or to the rest of the players. If your so singularly engaged in one particular style of play that exploration, narration, thespianism, low drama, dungeon crawling, tactical gaming or whatever doesn't engage you to the point that you are going to get 'shirty' if we detour in gaming focus from your preferred style, then I consider you an inherently anti-social gamer that needs to go find a different DM and a less diverse group than I usually play with. Not only do I not want to do the same thing every session, but there is a good chance out of the six or so players at the table there is at least one that thinks exploration is the main attraction of the game and is relatively bored by combat, levelling up, or whatever you think the 'destination' is. And frankly, if you want to cross a desert with minimal interaction with the desert, you're much better off flying over it than tying yourself down to the back of a huge scurrying vermin. On the back of huge scurrying vermin is such intimate interaction with the desert that its the sort of thing that I would probably include as the means of crossing the desert in the first place. There are probably places somewhere in my world where hobgoblin guides run taxi services for travellers on the backs of giant beetles or something. It's the sort of thing I'd do because foot travel is mundane and insufficiently fantastic to spark players interaction and emmersion into the environment. They won't take the time to imagine the scene, to make a movie of the game in their heads, if I just have them cross a desert on foot. But in a caravan of giant beetles with colorful NPC's and giant centipede riding bandits, now that they'll imagine.
And the whole notion that the goal is to force a 'slog' is just bizarre. Everything that about D&D can be viewed as a slog if you are 'destination' focused. Oh, gee, must we get in a combat again? Oh, gee, another NPC to talk to. Must I role-play _again_? Oh great, a trap filled tomb. If all that is important is the destination, why bother playing? Just fill out what you want your 20th level character to look like and be done with it. The whole game is the journey. One of the inherent attributes of an PnP RPG is that it is open ended. There never is a destination. It's all journey.
It's this sort of thing that I really believe strips players of any desire to try to be creative at the table. When creativity is actively punished, why bother being creative?
Punished? You have a really strange notion of what being punished is. If the DM tries to emmerse you in the situation by making you think about the concrete realities of the situation, that's being punished? Most players I've had consider emersion to be something desirable in a session. Thinking about tying themselves down to a giant centipede and imagining the details of the journey makes the game more exciting and rewarding, and not less. On the back of a giant centipede scurrying over gravel beds, salt pans, giant dunes, dry gullies, and what not is generally a more rewarding experience to them than teleporting across the desert. Heck, you've got no clue. I'm the guy that when a player new to the game says, "I want my character to ride dinosuars that shoot lasers from their eyes." says, "Yeah, I think that would be great for the game. Keep in mind that sense you are first level it might be a while before you can acquire the laser firing dinosaur, but let me tell you how to build that character and make him interesting along the way to your goal." Being creative is not the problem I ever have with players.
