Personally, I'm happy to bend the rules if it will make the players experience more enjoyable.
I personally see D&D as a sort of social event, but with a common goal and purpose in mind. For that reason, I think limiting what players can do (outside of letting them break the game just for the sake of breaking the game, and then not saying 'okay, yeah, this is too much, sorry but I cant allow that') is rather pointless. The memories you make with a group of friends is WAY more important to me than following rules that are almost made to be modified, tweaked, and improved to whoever is at the tables liking.
Personally, I'm happy to bend the rules if it will make the players experience more enjoyable.
I personally see D&D as a sort of social event, but with a common goal and purpose in mind. For that reason, I think limiting what players can do (outside of letting them break the game just for the sake of breaking the game, and then not saying 'okay, yeah, this is too much, sorry but I cant allow that') is rather pointless. The memories you make with a group of friends is WAY more important to me than following rules that are almost made to be modified, tweaked, and improved to whoever is at the tables liking.
I will *definitely* agree with this to a large degree. That said, I think the one thing to keep in mind is that D&D *is* a game. By all means, establish ground rules with players. Feel free to adjust said rules as play goes on. Make sure everyone is having fun. Allow RP opportunities for those who love RP. Allow mechanical opportunities to those who love systems. Be all things to everyone.
But, above all be transparent. Let everyone know which house rules are in effect. Use the mechanics in favor of the game. When you set a DC beforehand, stick to it, while letting your players do whatever they can to beat it. Failure makes just as good a story as success- sure, you wanted an info dump on that DC 10 History check, but the player rolled a 1. You can make it up later somehow, while also giving a good in-scenario story effect ("punishment") for the failure.
This might be controversial, but roll in the open as a DM. Your players will feel it that much more when the boss rolls a 9 but stills hits a 20. Sure, the paladin getting hit while wearing plate mail is always eye opening. But really, having your player seeing the low roll, doing the calculation, and knowing how screwed they really are? Priceless. AND even better when they manage to take the guy down despite all reason.
DCs, dice, randomness? They are your friends. Playing by the rules is a great playstyle when everyone knows what those rules are. Greedily keeping all info behind the screen and looking for ways to screw players over is a sure road to a bad campaign - as is giving them everything on a silver platter and "fudging" in their favor. They know when they roll a 2 and you still give them stuff (excluding higher level proficiencies and expertise, in which case, roll with the greatness they have achieved).
Table Top RPGs are unique. They are a constantly instanced version of a game, using the greatest processor evolution has developed. Mechanics *are* important for making the game an actual game. The DM is there to to shape that into a story.
Yes, of course. If players want a more mechanically focused experience, I'm going to try to give that to them if I can.
However, sticking to the rules constantly and not allowing players who WANT to break off slightly and do something else because "The book doesnt say so" is IMO a fault on the DMs part.
I'm just the narrator, they're the ones in the story who determine where they go and what they do. I allow my players to do anything they with within the rules. Any classes, races, backgrounds that are in print-format. Basically, if it looks professionally done, I allow it. I have a bard that has cross-classed into an Old Spice Gentleman, a Duck Totem Barbarian, and my next campaign will feature a Kai Lord (Lone Wolf series).
I'd say I'm a mix of by the book and generous. Meaning, I didn't memorize all the rules, I just don't have the time or desire. I try to do my best, but there is no way I can know all the spells ahead of time. So, if you as the player tell me you want to do a thing and I don't think it would work or I interpret the rules in some way, I'm happy to have you look it up and point it out to me. If I'm wrong on RAW and RAI then I'm more than happy to back down and have it go your way. I'm more about the story being cool than "beating you," but I am very much trying to see how far I can push the players without killing them. :)
That having been said, at this point the one rule I've got regarding arbitrary limits, is only one person in the party picking up the lucky feat. Holy crap, the rolling!
Also, a PS anecdote: I had created a super charismatic bard. He was trying to convince a guy to let him have an item after the team saved the town. The GM wasn't having it. I RPed the crap out of it and then told the GM I'd like to roll persuasion for it. He told me he didn't like rolling for interaction stuff, I had to RP it and if he deemed it good enough it would work, if not, not. and he wouldn't let me roll for persuasion.
Now people, this is a game about playing characters that can do things you never could in real life...being expert swordsmen, archers, and spellcasters, all of which is represented with numbers, dice, and skills. Maybe you as the GM don't think my eloquent wording is good enough, but it isn't up to you to interpret what I, as the player say, but what my character is capable of. If my character swings his sword no one would demand I give an actual demonstration of my personal swordsmanship in order to hit.
And, no, I'm not talking about a, "I wanna convince him to give me the staff so I roll persuasion" but rather an impassioned, in character, plea and back and forth with the NPC, followed by a request to roll.
PS, after complaining for a while that my character was pretty useless as built if his primary skillset was going to be ignored, I was allowed to roll, and rolled a 19 + a lot. I might as well have rolled a 1. After he pulled similar crap with the halfling paladin who wanted to use his actual dog pet as a mount rather than the summoned one (basically, let me treat this real dog as a summoned dog for the purposes of being a mount) the fun was sucked out. That player went way further in arguing and complaining than I had and the GM quit in a huff.
Heh. As a DM, I *love* the Lucky feat. My players tend to roll really awesome in combat and social interactions (and yes Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation checks are your friend - RP is great and all, but lets get some mechanics to back it up. If you do really well in the RP portion, that's what the Advantage mechanic is for!) without the Feat but tend to fail the most when it comes to Exploration - Perception, Investigation, Survival, History, Nature, Religion - the most optimized characters for these rolls almost always tend to hit at least 1 below the DC. Have all the Luck you need!
That said, there is a statistically unbelievable number of times a player at my table with the Lucky feat tends to roll the exact same number they rolled before.
That said, there is a statistically unbelievable number of times a player at my table with the Lucky feat tends to roll the exact same number they rolled before.
Ha! Mines been rolling less! Guess they accidentally took "Unlucky"
I had created a super charismatic bard. He was trying to convince a guy to let him have an item after the team saved the town. The GM wasn't having it. I RPed the crap out of it and then told the GM I'd like to roll persuasion for it....And, no, I'm not talking about a, "I wanna convince him to give me the staff so I roll persuasion" but rather an impassioned, in character, plea and back and forth with the NPC, followed by a request to roll....PS, after complaining for a while that my character was pretty useless as built if his primary skillset was going to be ignored, I was allowed to roll, and rolled a 19 + a lot. I might as well have rolled a 1.
This is not an example of a GM failure. Not as written. Think about a real life situation where you are greatful to someone. Think about a situation where your pipes burst and sewer water is running down your stairs, and a plumber comes in the middle of the night and fixes your problem for you. You'll probably be INCREDIBLY grateful...
But if the plumber turns around and asks you for your $70,000 BMW that he saw in the garage, in addition to the $1,800 you agreed to before he began the job, you're probably going to say no. No matter how "impassioned," or "desperate" he appears to be. And it's a fair analogy. A decent magic item is going to be valued at ~30 years labor, and is one of the most expensive single items any NPC is ever likely to acquire in their lifetimes... And THAT'S assuming that the item itself has no significant emotional value to the NPC. Charisma will only take you so far. There ARE tasks that have impossible-without-divine-intervention DCs in every catagory.
If your reason for needing it isn't "the whole world will burn if you don't hand it over" and he isn't a long-time friend who owes you dozens of favors, magic doodads can be a tough sell.
I had created a super charismatic bard. He was trying to convince a guy to let him have an item after the team saved the town. The GM wasn't having it. I RPed the crap out of it and then told the GM I'd like to roll persuasion for it....And, no, I'm not talking about a, "I wanna convince him to give me the staff so I roll persuasion" but rather an impassioned, in character, plea and back and forth with the NPC, followed by a request to roll....PS, after complaining for a while that my character was pretty useless as built if his primary skillset was going to be ignored, I was allowed to roll, and rolled a 19 + a lot. I might as well have rolled a 1.
This is not an example of a GM failure. Not as written. Think about a real life situation where you are greatful to someone. Think about a situation where your pipes burst and sewer water is running down your stairs, and a plumber comes in the middle of the night and fixes your problem for you. You'll probably be INCREDIBLY grateful...
But if the plumber turns around and asks you for your $70,000 BMW that he saw in the garage, in addition to the $1,800 you agreed to before he began the job, you're probably going to say no. No matter how "impassioned," or "desperate" he appears to be. And it's a fair analogy. A decent magic item is going to be valued at ~30 years labor, and is one of the most expensive single items any NPC is ever likely to acquire in their lifetimes... And THAT'S assuming that the item itself has no significant emotional value to the NPC. Charisma will only take you so far. There ARE tasks that have impossible-without-divine-intervention DCs in every catagory.
That wasn't the situation I described at all. Difficulty Class is supposed to be set by the GM. How hard would it be to do a thing. Players can decide to attempt the thing or not, and their character's ability provides a modifier to that task. See: Typical Difficulty Classes
In the situation above as a GM I'd give it a 30. But the situation above is a red herring.
So here is my point and two examples:
The point wasn't, "I rolled well and he didn't allow it" The point was at first, and for like 5-10 minutes of trying, he wouldn't let me even roll against my skill. That is massively frustrating for a player.
Example 1 (The actual scenario): We had just uncovered a demonic presence infesting the town, we had gone in and defeated the many hordes of foes. Turns out their big priest was actually a thrall to the BBEG. After the combat I wanted to take a staff from the now dead thrall (IMO part of combat loot at most tables). City guard says, no, no this belongs to the city. I try to tell him it could very well be the source of the evil and that seeing as how we just mopped up this huge mess he'd better allow us to inspect it and take it away for the city's good. It wasn't a deception check (though that should have been allowed too) because at the time that's what I thought it was.
GM later told us it was a staff of healing.
So. GM fail on multiple levels: 1. Most importantly, he didn't let a player even attempt to use a skill their character had heavily invested in. This is like telling a thief he cannot attempt to pick the lock, or being generous, telling a player with a master climber character they cannot even attempt to climb the cliff face. 2. He could have assigned it a difficulty of 30 (in his head) and then had me try and had the guard apologetically explained whatever asinine reason he wouldn't comply. Keep in mind, other than being good, there was no reason I couldn't have just taken it from him. 3. The staff hadn't been used in combat, there was no reason whatsoever for this to be a "super overpowered staff." A) He could have let us get it, determine our fears were right and we should destroy it! B) He could have let us get it, and determine it was a staff of ... anything he felt was appropriate, heck even a Staff of Smiles would have felt satisfactory. (We already knew it had magic from detect magic)
Example 2 (Applying the same principal to any other skill):
Player: "I want to draw my blade and swing at the guy's head!" GM: "Ok, stand up and demonstrate the swing." Player: "Umm, ok?" <stands up> "I guess I would kinda go like this and deliver a massive blow" <swings his arm in an arc> GM: "Yeah, that's not going to be good enough to hit" Player: "Wait, what?!" GM: "Yeah, this is a difficult opponent to hit, so you miss." Player: "But my character is a seasoned fighter and he's got a super high strength." GM: "No, I know that, but I don't really like using stats to determine results in combat, I think it's contrived" (ACTUAL quote from GM, except substitute 'social skills in RP') Player: "But I'm not a swordsman, my character is, see, he gets a +5 to strength, I couldn't bench 50 lbs, but my character could bench 500!" GM: "Yeah, I don't like those rules in the game." Player: "I pretty much built my character thinking we were following the rules, which state that I get to roll to hit, which is why I put points into strength." GM (Annoyed): "FINE. Roll to hit" Player: <rolls> "I got a 19 ... plus 10, so 29" GM: You missed. Player: "Wait, what? we're level 6, how does our opponent have an AC of 29" GM: "Yeah, he doesn't, but I didn't feel in this situation, like you would have hit"
I want to punch something just thinking about it again. lol.
I completely see your point, but in fairness to your DM, charisma is heavily role play dependent and a hard one to work with. Last night I had someone roll a 17 of charisma, but there was no way they were going to get what they were aiming for. I did allow it to alter the encounter, though - the bad guys didn't hand over the very lucrative slaves, but no one started shooting either - something of a mexican standoff ensued. Turns out the PCs worked together well enough that the bad guys ended up getting freaked out and cutting and running.
But I had to think about it and discussed it with the players after the initial roll.
Combat is much easier - take a shot and start rolling dice.
DM is the one who decides if and when you make a skill check. The player gets to say what they are trying to do and add any role play. But if the DM has decided that a skill check roll isn’t called for then you don’t get to roll. Somethings are not going to happen regardless of the characters skills.
Perhaps the DM was being unfair, or they may have had plot reasons.
So, In response to the many "GM gets to choose" posts. As a GM, yes, I agree. However... HUGE however... if a player is CLEARLY trying to do something, pick a lock, check for traps, persuade someone, deceive someone, etc. I'm going to let them try. Vice versa is also true. A player who is bad at RP or persuasion specifically shouldn't always fail their attempts if their character is great at it. The game is about letting people who are NOT good at the things their character can do, do those things. I don't know about you, but when I cast fireball IRL here in Texas a heat wave spreads throughout the nation.
I do want social stuff to be RP'ed as well as the player can, and then roll their character's skill. Because if the character is horrible at persuasion the fact that their player is awesome at it and made valid points should not come into it that much. The character is horrible at it.
Its the same if you have a harvard grad playing Grog or some low int character. The player may have a great plan, and if you allow meta at your table then great, (I allow some but not a lot) but the character would't be able to come up with a full, complex plan and expound all the details.
Likewise, if something is truly impossible for some reason then I'd explain it to the player, "That staff is a relic of the town, they'd rather die than allow you to have it, no matter what you say." But honestly, I'd still let them roll for it, and then explain it somehow.
Again, apply that to anything else. "I wanna pick the lock." If your response is, "you can't" that makes for a frustrating, boring game. If you instead said, "Make aThieves Tool roll" If they fail the roll, you;'re already golden, if they get a high roll, "You start analyzing the lock as you get ready to pick it. It seems inhumanly complex and you realize there's no way you'd be able to pick it due to it's Artificer created nature." On a nat 20 I'd give the player some hint as to how they might go about opening it short of thieves tools
I don't know how I class on the "Maturity Scale" - but I have always viewed the rules as "guidelines" - they are there to simulate a pseudo-reality, consistently.
I wouldn't put any arbitrary restrictions ( one Elf per party ) on my game, because I can't think of a reason why that sort of restriction would occur in "reality".
If a RAW leads to a plausible result, I'll keep it as is: It helps when the players know "how the world works", and that it is consistent.
But I I have no problem bending a rule to match what I envision as a consistent plausible reality. ( yeah, sure, the RAW might allow you to fire your bow while you're encased in Jello, but come on ... ) - but I really try to note the situations under which I bend it, and why, and do my damnedest to bend it the same way if the circumstances are matched - even pseudo-reality should be consistent.
I also agree that if something is obviouslynot possible ( I want to make an athletics check to jump over the sea ) the player doesn't get a roll, and I'd explain that to the player ( hey, your CHARACTER knows this isn't possible to do, even if you got a Natural 20 ).
A lot of the time I'll ask for a roll, not to see if they succeed, but how long it takes. A Rogue is going to pick a lock, in the dungeon, with no pressure? It's going to happen; it might take a low level Rogue 3 hours, and beat the hell out of the lock ( making it obvious to whomever comes by that the lock has been tampered with ) but given no penalty for failure, and no time constraints, they can just keep plugging at it until something gives. DC is 25, and played rolled 6? < does some mental calculation and figures the gap is 19, so it will take 3 hours and 10 minutes to puzzle out this lock, and that the DC to see if the lock is tampered with is 20 - 19 ... so bloody obvious without a critical failure > : "OK, so Farad the Slippery begins to tinker with the lock in an attempt to get it open .... 10 minutes pass ... 20 minutes pass ... 30 ... 40 ... an hour ... " - either the players will jump in and say "OK, we stop and bash the door down", or I'll reach the 3 hour mark.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Right - IMHO, making a ruling "you can't do that because I can't adjudicate that, or I don't like that" is a violation of my "try and consistently model a pseudo-reality" principle.
There is one caveat here though. If a players proposes an action which falls outside the current rules - "I jump on the orcs back and attempt to stab them in the eyes with my dagger" - you really do have to consider what the future implications are for the game mechanics.
In "reality" there is absolutely no reason not to allow that.
But you are allowing the much-debated "called shots". What is the impact on the game if you allow that? Well - it allows everyone to "shortcut" combat. Players can take out the Dragon's wings; orcs can blind the party's wizard by a called bow shot to the eye. Is everyone happy with those implications and possibilities? If so - no problem. The DM might have to put some more thought into planning encounters ( my Ranger will likely take out the Dragon's wings, so I need to add this ... ), but that can be done.
If the players want to be able to take out the Dragon's wings - but don't want the orcs to be able to blind the wizard - now you have a problem.
What I might do in that case if I'm being lazy, is sidestep the issue by allowing the action to occur, but not allowing any mechanical advantage. "OK, Bob, you leap onto the Orc, brandishing your dagger ..." but the attack and damage dice rolls are unaffected. Honestly, in the heat of combat, the player might not even notice that nothing "special" happened. I think of that as "skinning an attack".
If I was less lazy, then I might whip up a quick mechanic, which grants both advantages ( so the player gets something "special" happening ) and disadvantages ( so they're not calling shots on everything all the time ) both of which have to be realistic : roll acrobatics to leap on the Orc's back; if you succeed you get +X to the attack, but you lose 1/2 of your movement.
I agree with "you can most certainly try" for each player's proposed actions - but you also have to think about, and balance, for future implications.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
It appears to me that you're expounding a variant on "the rule of cool"; it's narratively interesting, so it happens in scene A, but it's not narratively interesting scene B, so it doesn't happen.
I can see and appreciate that viewpoint, but to me a consistent simulation of a pseudo-reality is important; the same actions occurring in different settings have similar effects ( unless the settings have an effect on those actions ).
Neither is right or wrong - it's just differences in philosophy/approach.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My first post was not a flame post. I don't see why that was deleted.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
Personally, I'm happy to bend the rules if it will make the players experience more enjoyable.
I personally see D&D as a sort of social event, but with a common goal and purpose in mind. For that reason, I think limiting what players can do (outside of letting them break the game just for the sake of breaking the game, and then not saying 'okay, yeah, this is too much, sorry but I cant allow that') is rather pointless. The memories you make with a group of friends is WAY more important to me than following rules that are almost made to be modified, tweaked, and improved to whoever is at the tables liking.
I will *definitely* agree with this to a large degree. That said, I think the one thing to keep in mind is that D&D *is* a game. By all means, establish ground rules with players. Feel free to adjust said rules as play goes on. Make sure everyone is having fun. Allow RP opportunities for those who love RP. Allow mechanical opportunities to those who love systems. Be all things to everyone.
But, above all be transparent. Let everyone know which house rules are in effect. Use the mechanics in favor of the game. When you set a DC beforehand, stick to it, while letting your players do whatever they can to beat it. Failure makes just as good a story as success- sure, you wanted an info dump on that DC 10 History check, but the player rolled a 1. You can make it up later somehow, while also giving a good in-scenario story effect ("punishment") for the failure.
This might be controversial, but roll in the open as a DM. Your players will feel it that much more when the boss rolls a 9 but stills hits a 20. Sure, the paladin getting hit while wearing plate mail is always eye opening. But really, having your player seeing the low roll, doing the calculation, and knowing how screwed they really are? Priceless. AND even better when they manage to take the guy down despite all reason.
DCs, dice, randomness? They are your friends. Playing by the rules is a great playstyle when everyone knows what those rules are. Greedily keeping all info behind the screen and looking for ways to screw players over is a sure road to a bad campaign - as is giving them everything on a silver platter and "fudging" in their favor. They know when they roll a 2 and you still give them stuff (excluding higher level proficiencies and expertise, in which case, roll with the greatness they have achieved).
Table Top RPGs are unique. They are a constantly instanced version of a game, using the greatest processor evolution has developed. Mechanics *are* important for making the game an actual game. The DM is there to to shape that into a story.
Yes, of course. If players want a more mechanically focused experience, I'm going to try to give that to them if I can.
However, sticking to the rules constantly and not allowing players who WANT to break off slightly and do something else because "The book doesnt say so" is IMO a fault on the DMs part.
I'm just the narrator, they're the ones in the story who determine where they go and what they do. I allow my players to do anything they with within the rules. Any classes, races, backgrounds that are in print-format. Basically, if it looks professionally done, I allow it. I have a bard that has cross-classed into an Old Spice Gentleman, a Duck Totem Barbarian, and my next campaign will feature a Kai Lord (Lone Wolf series).
I'd say I'm a mix of by the book and generous. Meaning, I didn't memorize all the rules, I just don't have the time or desire. I try to do my best, but there is no way I can know all the spells ahead of time. So, if you as the player tell me you want to do a thing and I don't think it would work or I interpret the rules in some way, I'm happy to have you look it up and point it out to me. If I'm wrong on RAW and RAI then I'm more than happy to back down and have it go your way. I'm more about the story being cool than "beating you," but I am very much trying to see how far I can push the players without killing them. :)
That having been said, at this point the one rule I've got regarding arbitrary limits, is only one person in the party picking up the lucky feat. Holy crap, the rolling!
Also, a PS anecdote: I had created a super charismatic bard. He was trying to convince a guy to let him have an item after the team saved the town. The GM wasn't having it. I RPed the crap out of it and then told the GM I'd like to roll persuasion for it. He told me he didn't like rolling for interaction stuff, I had to RP it and if he deemed it good enough it would work, if not, not. and he wouldn't let me roll for persuasion.
Now people, this is a game about playing characters that can do things you never could in real life...being expert swordsmen, archers, and spellcasters, all of which is represented with numbers, dice, and skills. Maybe you as the GM don't think my eloquent wording is good enough, but it isn't up to you to interpret what I, as the player say, but what my character is capable of. If my character swings his sword no one would demand I give an actual demonstration of my personal swordsmanship in order to hit.
And, no, I'm not talking about a, "I wanna convince him to give me the staff so I roll persuasion" but rather an impassioned, in character, plea and back and forth with the NPC, followed by a request to roll.
PS, after complaining for a while that my character was pretty useless as built if his primary skillset was going to be ignored, I was allowed to roll, and rolled a 19 + a lot. I might as well have rolled a 1. After he pulled similar crap with the halfling paladin who wanted to use his actual dog pet as a mount rather than the summoned one (basically, let me treat this real dog as a summoned dog for the purposes of being a mount) the fun was sucked out. That player went way further in arguing and complaining than I had and the GM quit in a huff.
Fail GMs, Fail.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
Heh. As a DM, I *love* the Lucky feat. My players tend to roll really awesome in combat and social interactions (and yes Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation checks are your friend - RP is great and all, but lets get some mechanics to back it up. If you do really well in the RP portion, that's what the Advantage mechanic is for!) without the Feat but tend to fail the most when it comes to Exploration - Perception, Investigation, Survival, History, Nature, Religion - the most optimized characters for these rolls almost always tend to hit at least 1 below the DC. Have all the Luck you need!
That said, there is a statistically unbelievable number of times a player at my table with the Lucky feat tends to roll the exact same number they rolled before.
Ha! Mines been rolling less! Guess they accidentally took "Unlucky"
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
This is not an example of a GM failure. Not as written. Think about a real life situation where you are greatful to someone. Think about a situation where your pipes burst and sewer water is running down your stairs, and a plumber comes in the middle of the night and fixes your problem for you. You'll probably be INCREDIBLY grateful...
But if the plumber turns around and asks you for your $70,000 BMW that he saw in the garage, in addition to the $1,800 you agreed to before he began the job, you're probably going to say no. No matter how "impassioned," or "desperate" he appears to be. And it's a fair analogy. A decent magic item is going to be valued at ~30 years labor, and is one of the most expensive single items any NPC is ever likely to acquire in their lifetimes... And THAT'S assuming that the item itself has no significant emotional value to the NPC. Charisma will only take you so far. There ARE tasks that have impossible-without-divine-intervention DCs in every catagory.
If your reason for needing it isn't "the whole world will burn if you don't hand it over" and he isn't a long-time friend who owes you dozens of favors, magic doodads can be a tough sell.
That wasn't the situation I described at all. Difficulty Class is supposed to be set by the GM. How hard would it be to do a thing. Players can decide to attempt the thing or not, and their character's ability provides a modifier to that task. See: Typical Difficulty Classes
In the situation above as a GM I'd give it a 30. But the situation above is a red herring.
So here is my point and two examples:
The point wasn't, "I rolled well and he didn't allow it" The point was at first, and for like 5-10 minutes of trying, he wouldn't let me even roll against my skill. That is massively frustrating for a player.
Example 1 (The actual scenario): We had just uncovered a demonic presence infesting the town, we had gone in and defeated the many hordes of foes. Turns out their big priest was actually a thrall to the BBEG. After the combat I wanted to take a staff from the now dead thrall (IMO part of combat loot at most tables). City guard says, no, no this belongs to the city. I try to tell him it could very well be the source of the evil and that seeing as how we just mopped up this huge mess he'd better allow us to inspect it and take it away for the city's good. It wasn't a deception check (though that should have been allowed too) because at the time that's what I thought it was.
GM later told us it was a staff of healing.
So. GM fail on multiple levels:
1. Most importantly, he didn't let a player even attempt to use a skill their character had heavily invested in. This is like telling a thief he cannot attempt to pick the lock, or being generous, telling a player with a master climber character they cannot even attempt to climb the cliff face.
2. He could have assigned it a difficulty of 30 (in his head) and then had me try and had the guard apologetically explained whatever asinine reason he wouldn't comply. Keep in mind, other than being good, there was no reason I couldn't have just taken it from him.
3. The staff hadn't been used in combat, there was no reason whatsoever for this to be a "super overpowered staff."
A) He could have let us get it, determine our fears were right and we should destroy it!
B) He could have let us get it, and determine it was a staff of ... anything he felt was appropriate, heck even a Staff of Smiles would have felt satisfactory. (We already knew it had magic from detect magic)
Example 2 (Applying the same principal to any other skill):
Player: "I want to draw my blade and swing at the guy's head!"
GM: "Ok, stand up and demonstrate the swing."
Player: "Umm, ok?" <stands up> "I guess I would kinda go like this and deliver a massive blow" <swings his arm in an arc>
GM: "Yeah, that's not going to be good enough to hit"
Player: "Wait, what?!"
GM: "Yeah, this is a difficult opponent to hit, so you miss."
Player: "But my character is a seasoned fighter and he's got a super high strength."
GM: "No, I know that, but I don't really like using stats to determine results in combat, I think it's contrived" (ACTUAL quote from GM, except substitute 'social skills in RP')
Player: "But I'm not a swordsman, my character is, see, he gets a +5 to strength, I couldn't bench 50 lbs, but my character could bench 500!"
GM: "Yeah, I don't like those rules in the game."
Player: "I pretty much built my character thinking we were following the rules, which state that I get to roll to hit, which is why I put points into strength."
GM (Annoyed): "FINE. Roll to hit"
Player: <rolls> "I got a 19 ... plus 10, so 29"
GM: You missed.
Player: "Wait, what? we're level 6, how does our opponent have an AC of 29"
GM: "Yeah, he doesn't, but I didn't feel in this situation, like you would have hit"
I want to punch something just thinking about it again. lol.
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
I completely see your point, but in fairness to your DM, charisma is heavily role play dependent and a hard one to work with. Last night I had someone roll a 17 of charisma, but there was no way they were going to get what they were aiming for. I did allow it to alter the encounter, though - the bad guys didn't hand over the very lucrative slaves, but no one started shooting either - something of a mexican standoff ensued. Turns out the PCs worked together well enough that the bad guys ended up getting freaked out and cutting and running.
But I had to think about it and discussed it with the players after the initial roll.
Combat is much easier - take a shot and start rolling dice.
I understand the frustration and I don't agree with the GM, but a GM can choose to not let you roll if the DC is impossible anyway.
DM is the one who decides if and when you make a skill check. The player gets to say what they are trying to do and add any role play. But if the DM has decided that a skill check roll isn’t called for then you don’t get to roll. Somethings are not going to happen regardless of the characters skills.
Perhaps the DM was being unfair, or they may have had plot reasons.
So, In response to the many "GM gets to choose" posts. As a GM, yes, I agree. However... HUGE however... if a player is CLEARLY trying to do something, pick a lock, check for traps, persuade someone, deceive someone, etc. I'm going to let them try. Vice versa is also true. A player who is bad at RP or persuasion specifically shouldn't always fail their attempts if their character is great at it. The game is about letting people who are NOT good at the things their character can do, do those things. I don't know about you, but when I cast fireball IRL here in Texas a heat wave spreads throughout the nation.
I do want social stuff to be RP'ed as well as the player can, and then roll their character's skill. Because if the character is horrible at persuasion the fact that their player is awesome at it and made valid points should not come into it that much. The character is horrible at it.
Its the same if you have a harvard grad playing Grog or some low int character. The player may have a great plan, and if you allow meta at your table then great, (I allow some but not a lot) but the character would't be able to come up with a full, complex plan and expound all the details.
Likewise, if something is truly impossible for some reason then I'd explain it to the player, "That staff is a relic of the town, they'd rather die than allow you to have it, no matter what you say." But honestly, I'd still let them roll for it, and then explain it somehow.
Again, apply that to anything else. "I wanna pick the lock." If your response is, "you can't" that makes for a frustrating, boring game. If you instead said, "Make aThieves Tool roll" If they fail the roll, you;'re already golden, if they get a high roll, "You start analyzing the lock as you get ready to pick it. It seems inhumanly complex and you realize there's no way you'd be able to pick it due to it's Artificer created nature." On a nat 20 I'd give the player some hint as to how they might go about opening it short of thieves tools
Playtesting Fugare Draconis, an epic tale of adventure, loss, and redemption
I don't know how I class on the "Maturity Scale" - but I have always viewed the rules as "guidelines" - they are there to simulate a pseudo-reality, consistently.
I wouldn't put any arbitrary restrictions ( one Elf per party ) on my game, because I can't think of a reason why that sort of restriction would occur in "reality".
If a RAW leads to a plausible result, I'll keep it as is: It helps when the players know "how the world works", and that it is consistent.
But I I have no problem bending a rule to match what I envision as a consistent plausible reality. ( yeah, sure, the RAW might allow you to fire your bow while you're encased in Jello, but come on ... ) - but I really try to note the situations under which I bend it, and why, and do my damnedest to bend it the same way if the circumstances are matched - even pseudo-reality should be consistent.
I also agree that if something is obviously not possible ( I want to make an athletics check to jump over the sea ) the player doesn't get a roll, and I'd explain that to the player ( hey, your CHARACTER knows this isn't possible to do, even if you got a Natural 20 ).
A lot of the time I'll ask for a roll, not to see if they succeed, but how long it takes. A Rogue is going to pick a lock, in the dungeon, with no pressure? It's going to happen; it might take a low level Rogue 3 hours, and beat the hell out of the lock ( making it obvious to whomever comes by that the lock has been tampered with ) but given no penalty for failure, and no time constraints, they can just keep plugging at it until something gives. DC is 25, and played rolled 6? < does some mental calculation and figures the gap is 19, so it will take 3 hours and 10 minutes to puzzle out this lock, and that the DC to see if the lock is tampered with is 20 - 19 ... so bloody obvious without a critical failure > : "OK, so Farad the Slippery begins to tinker with the lock in an attempt to get it open .... 10 minutes pass ... 20 minutes pass ... 30 ... 40 ... an hour ... " - either the players will jump in and say "OK, we stop and bash the door down", or I'll reach the 3 hour mark.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Right - IMHO, making a ruling "you can't do that because I can't adjudicate that, or I don't like that" is a violation of my "try and consistently model a pseudo-reality" principle.
There is one caveat here though. If a players proposes an action which falls outside the current rules - "I jump on the orcs back and attempt to stab them in the eyes with my dagger" - you really do have to consider what the future implications are for the game mechanics.
In "reality" there is absolutely no reason not to allow that.
But you are allowing the much-debated "called shots". What is the impact on the game if you allow that? Well - it allows everyone to "shortcut" combat. Players can take out the Dragon's wings; orcs can blind the party's wizard by a called bow shot to the eye. Is everyone happy with those implications and possibilities? If so - no problem. The DM might have to put some more thought into planning encounters ( my Ranger will likely take out the Dragon's wings, so I need to add this ... ), but that can be done.
If the players want to be able to take out the Dragon's wings - but don't want the orcs to be able to blind the wizard - now you have a problem.
What I might do in that case if I'm being lazy, is sidestep the issue by allowing the action to occur, but not allowing any mechanical advantage. "OK, Bob, you leap onto the Orc, brandishing your dagger ..." but the attack and damage dice rolls are unaffected. Honestly, in the heat of combat, the player might not even notice that nothing "special" happened. I think of that as "skinning an attack".
If I was less lazy, then I might whip up a quick mechanic, which grants both advantages ( so the player gets something "special" happening ) and disadvantages ( so they're not calling shots on everything all the time ) both of which have to be realistic : roll acrobatics to leap on the Orc's back; if you succeed you get +X to the attack, but you lose 1/2 of your movement.
I agree with "you can most certainly try" for each player's proposed actions - but you also have to think about, and balance, for future implications.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I think we might differ philosophically here.
It appears to me that you're expounding a variant on "the rule of cool"; it's narratively interesting, so it happens in scene A, but it's not narratively interesting scene B, so it doesn't happen.
I can see and appreciate that viewpoint, but to me a consistent simulation of a pseudo-reality is important; the same actions occurring in different settings have similar effects ( unless the settings have an effect on those actions ).
Neither is right or wrong - it's just differences in philosophy/approach.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.