D&D General "Player Skill" versus DM Ingenuity as a playstyle.

[EzekielRaiden]

“Guess which number between 1 and 100 I am thinking of right now and your party survives the trash compactor trap.”

Agree it ain’t easy. Strangely it requires empathy for your group to design challenges that nicely match their ability. It definitely can’t be some obscure puzzle that no one in a million years would figure out. Call of Cthulhu scenario writers have to do this for almost every single adventure.

But this just gets back to exactly what I pointed out before: that the actual challenge comes from a great deal of effort and work on the DM's part. I don't see how hiding the processes and resolution mechanics of the game (not "monsters within the game," the actual rules of how the game works) contributes in any way to that process. If it suddenly becomes "nearly impossible" to challenge players unless the DM can hide from them the way the game actually works...it sounds to me like that DM isn't actually willing to put in the work to, as you say, build off of empathy and understanding and worthwhile nuance.

It's not the rules-hiding that makes a challenge. It's having a gap between what you need to do, and what you have available. Sometimes information gaps can be used there. Declaring that it is impossible to do this unless you have information gaps at your disposal? That implies that information gaps are the ONLY way to challenge players, and that's simply false--not to mention a very damaging notion.

 

[Wolfpack48]

No thank.
games of « guess what what I’m thinking about » with the DM is not for me.
I run a character, DM run NPCs and monsters.
The competition and interaction are between those, not directly between me and the DM about nasty mind game.

We're not talking about guess what I'm thinking though (unless it's done incorrectly).

We're talking about ample clues to help a party to solve a mystery in the adventure. As in, many people in the village are mentioning strange events late at night near the old woods. Odd lights, and a strange moaning sound. The next morning a local animal is found dead, with strange puncture wounds. The party decides to go investigate the old woods.

 

[Wolfpack48]

But this just gets back to exactly what I pointed out before: that the actual challenge comes from a great deal of effort and work on the DM's part. I don't see how hiding the processes and resolution mechanics of the game (not "monsters within the game," the actual rules of how the game works) contributes in any way to that process. If it suddenly becomes "nearly impossible" to challenge players unless the DM can hide from them the way the game actually works...it sounds to me like that DM isn't actually willing to put in the work to, as you say, build off of empathy and understanding and worthwhile nuance.

It's not the rules-hiding that makes a challenge. It's having a gap between what you need to do, and what you have available. Sometimes information gaps can be used there. Declaring that it is impossible to do this unless you have information gaps at your disposal? That implies that information gaps are the ONLY way to challenge players, and that's simply false--not to mention a very damaging notion.

I wouldn't call it great effort, some effort though. See my previous post. That's a small mystery with apparent clues that took 5 minutes to create.

For most of the challenges I'm thinking of, knowing the rules isn't going to help with basic player deduction skills. There is no test or roll or rule needed to deduce that something is going on in the old woods.

Monster abilities is the one place I think you'd need to separate any player's meta knowledge from their character through a knowledge test/toll.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Has anyone here considered using Double Dare style physical challenges??

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Monster abilities is the one place I think you'd need to separate any player's meta knowledge from their character through a knowledge test/toll.

I mean, the better approach is to actually challenge them with monsters that don't work exactly the same every single time. Tired of players always preparing acid and fire to deal with trolls? Just...don't use them. Use other things, or have trolls in your world work differently. Maybe your trolls used to be giants, but were cursed for hubris or rudeness; being already part-stone, they're immune to fire and acid, but they crumble before the rolling thunder and get petrified by the Light which cursed them (vulnerable to thunder and radiant damage).

I'm not saying having "puzzle monsters" is bad, at least in moderation, but if someone is trying to rely on puzzle monsters that have been chronically overused...maybe their problem is that they aren't putting in the work to make new puzzles?

 

[Wolfpack48]

I mean, the better approach is to actually challenge them with monsters that don't work exactly the same every single time. Tired of players always preparing acid and fire to deal with trolls? Just...don't use them. Use other things, or have trolls in your world work differently. Maybe your trolls used to be giants, but were cursed for hubris or rudeness; being already part-stone, they're immune to fire and acid, but they crumble before the rolling thunder and get petrified by the Light which cursed them (vulnerable to thunder and radiant damage).

Sure, that's always been a tried and true approach. Giving special abilities or spells to boss monsters, or simply giving the monsters combat tactics and using terrain rather than having them dumb rushing headlong into death. There's lots of good ways to amp up the challenge without hiding rules.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure, that's always been a tried and true approach. Giving special abilities or spells to boss monsters, or simply giving the monsters combat tactics and using terrain rather than having them dumb rushing headlong into death. There's lots of good ways to amp up the challenge without hiding rules.

Yes, exactly: so if someone tells you it's "next to impossible" to make such challenges unless you can hide the rules...what does that imply?

 

[Lanefan]

I have no problem with points 3 and 4, but (as stated) I don't consider those part of the rules of the game. Yes, they're numerical attributes, but there's a difference between knowing how the game itself functions, and knowing that this particular monster has 62 HP, +5 Strength modifier, etc.

It's the first and second points I'm contesting--primarily the second. I can live without knowing the first, but don't really see how it's possible to control that information outside of the context of the fourth point: if players are never ever allowed to see the DMG, then DMs can't ever play the game again, and that's putting an even worse burden on them than we already had.

But the second? Why is that in any way valuable? How is it helpful to deny players knowledge of how saving throws work, and whether one has hit or not hit? These aren't things that differentiate one monster from another. They aren't challenges to be overcome with learning. They're just facts about how the game in general works. What is gained by such alleged "mystery"?

The mystery itself is what's gained.

When I-as-player can just roll a die when told to and leave it to the DM to look it up on the chart, and then tell me via narration what that roll has done (or not done) in the fiction, I'm happy.

I don't need to know my character needs a 9 or better to save vs paralysis, in part because my character doesn't and can't know that. All my character knows - and this only after being repeatedly exposed to paralysis-causing effects - is that sometimes he seems to be able to resist it and sometimes he isn't. And thus all I need to know as the player of said character is that when the DM says "Yet again, something's trying to paralyse you" I have to roll a d20, add whatever bonuses might apply at the time, and tell him the result.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The mystery itself is what's gained.

When I-as-player can just roll a die when told to and leave it to the DM to look it up on the chart, and then tell me via narration what that roll has done (or not done) in the fiction, I'm happy.

I don't need to know my character needs a 9 or better to save vs paralysis, in part because my character doesn't and can't know that. All my character knows - and this only after being repeatedly exposed to paralysis-causing effects - is that sometimes he seems to be able to resist it and sometimes he isn't. And thus all I need to know as the player of said character is that when the DM says "Yet again, something's trying to paralyse you" I have to roll a d20, add whatever bonuses might apply at the time, and tell him the result.

There is a vast gulf of difference between "the information is available to me, I just do not care to examine it" (a perfectly cromulent choice for any given person) and "I will not let the information be available to you regardless of your preferences." The former is a player choosing to play in the way they find most pleasing. The latter is the DM unilaterally declaring that all players must play that way.

Again, I don't need to know a monster's statblock (though you'd better believe I feel quite strongly about that statblock not changing without a diegetic reason once it's entered play). I do need to know how attack rolls actually work, if I'm going to be making informed decisions. Me knowing how attack rolls and saving throws works is the IRL abstract representation of my character having combat experience and being able to reason about dangers they face. I may not know the enemy's AC, but knowing my own statistics and what I've seen of the enemy is, in fact, the rules-side analogy of my character having intuitions about their ability (or lack thereof) to achieve success on the battlefield. Leaving that totally oblivious is, in fact, less like actually doing a real person's reasoning.

A real, reasonable (not perfect, just reasonable) person does not behave as though they are totally ignorant of their own capabilities when sincerely trying to succeed. Knowing that you need a 9 or better to hit (say) chainmail armor actually is a representation of your character's awareness of their abilities. That mechanical element precisely corresponds to the thought, "I've taken on jerks in chain before, it's still risky but the odds are in my favor." Yes, obviously, as a player you can be much more precise with those odds than the character could be, but that's the simple price we pay for having rules in the first place.

 

[Wolfpack48]

There is a vast gulf of difference between "the information is available to me, I just do not care to examine it" (a perfectly cromulent choice for any given person) and "I will not let the information be available to you regardless of your preferences." The former is a player choosing to play in the way they find most pleasing. The latter is the DM unilaterally declaring that all players must play that way.

Again, I don't need to know a monster's statblock (though you'd better believe I feel quite strongly about that statblock not changing without a diegetic reason once it's entered play). I do need to know how attack rolls actually work, if I'm going to be making informed decisions. Me knowing how attack rolls and saving throws works is the IRL abstract representation of my character having combat experience and being able to reason about dangers they face. I may not know the enemy's AC, but knowing my own statistics and what I've seen of the enemy is, in fact, the rules-side analogy of my character having intuitions about their ability (or lack thereof) to achieve success on the battlefield. Leaving that totally oblivious is, in fact, less like actually doing a real person's reasoning.

A real, reasonable (not perfect, just reasonable) person does not behave as though they are totally ignorant of their own capabilities when sincerely trying to succeed. Knowing that you need a 9 or better to hit (say) chainmail armor actually is a representation of your character's awareness of their abilities. That mechanical element precisely corresponds to the thought, "I've taken on jerks in chain before, it's still risky but the odds are in my favor." Yes, obviously, as a player you can be much more precise with those odds than the character could be, but that's the simple price we pay for having rules in the first place.

It’s really about how cleverly you operate the rules. I would never tell players they need a 9 to hit. Or that they need a 12 to disarm the trap. Or they need 12 damage to kill the monster. That's not immersive. They could eventually deduce those things after repeated attempts (if they really want to) but they aren’t told those things outright.

The goal isn’t to reproduce a video game but rather replicate the tension you might experience if you were to actually encounter these things.

But to be clear, all this isn't what I'm talking about when I mean challenge. I mean in-game challenges to the characters like the monsters themselves, traps, puzzles, mysteries that require player's head to help solve. Things like hiding the system ("roll a 12 to hit," "you take 7 hit points damage") are more to do with immersion than challenge.

Look at these two scenarios, though, for how mystery and tension can be added to standard monsters:

Scenario 1:
Player: I attack the orc
DM: Ok, roll, you need a 12.
Player: I roll a 15.
DM: Ok, you hit, roll your damage. You need a 4.
Player: I roll a 6.
DM: Ok, it's dead.

Scenario 2:
Player: I attack the orc
DM: Ok, what weapon are you using? Roll to attack.
Player: I'm using my magic broadword. I roll a 15.
DM: You plunge the sword into its shoulder. Roll your damage.
Player: I roll a 6
DM: Your sword cleaves through its shoulder and down through its chest and the orc falls in a bloody heap, dead.

The first is mechanical and uninteresting. The second leaves open the mystery of how dangerous the orc was, and how difficult it would be to kill even though everyone knows generally how difficult orcs are. If you amped or changed the stats for the particular orc, you leave open room for surprise and strangeness in the encounter -- "hey, this orc isn't acting like a typical orc!"