AntiDjinn |
Oh, definitely cast Legend Lore on the spot. When you have the person (or in this case his corpse) and place (the pit where he died) at hand the casting time is only 1d4 X 10 minutes. It can take weeks to cast otherwise. So get the 411 while you can. And if the storytelling DM isn't an utter hack he should welcome the chance to rattle off new details in the story he is telling and enhance the rich details of a campaign to complex to be derailed by anything as trivial as player characters.
Eirikrautha |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is a perfect example of the reason the Stormwind fallacy exists. What happened to "mechanics and roleplaying are two unconnected things"? Yet here we are, privileging the mechanical rolls over the story aspects of the game.
There are different expectations in different groups. Some groups want to play battle chess, where every dice roll is sacred and the Rules must never be breached. That's ok. Some groups want to make an adventure story together, with the rules being quite flexible when story requires it. That's ok.
What is important is that the GM and players agree on what they want. That seems to be the OP's issue. If the numbers matter that much to you, then you need to let the GM know, and give him some help constructing adventures that will suit your desires. The players have a responsibility in this as well.
It's funny, actually. I have occasionally expressed my opinion on these boards that the more mechanics involved in a game, the hard it is to focus on the "story" of your character (or put another way, the more discrete and comprehensive the rules, the more characters are restricted in their abilities and play). I am often met with disagreement on this opinion. And yet, on this thread, the consensus seems to be that the mechanical, numerical, delineation of the character and his abilities is by far the most important thing. There's irony in there somewhere...
Kobold Catgirl |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, definitely cast Legend Lore on the spot. When you have the person (or in this case his corpse) and place (the pit where he died) at hand the casting time is only 1d4 X 10 minutes.
"Hey, the wizard wants to stand here for an hour and start examining that random dead guy we found."
"Whuh—but we just finished buffing everyone!""Let's just keep going."
"Yeah, we leave him with his new friend."
...
GM: "The skeleton comes to life and eats your brains."
:)
Kobold Catgirl |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was joking, but I was also hoping you were, too. Seeing as your stated goal was just to make the GM squirm, which, as knightnday succinctly put it, is "not cool" (and, as I've pointed out multiple times, grievously misinformed on what the GM is actually doing).
Lots of people posting here with their own ideas on the validity of railroading. Not many signs of actual railroading.
Mike J |
Serious question on a related topic: When I'm writing adventures, there are times I "need" the players to discover something or learn something in order to progress the story/plot. Often the info is best discovered via a skill check of some kind - Knowledge, Perception, whatever. In these situations, rather than picking some arbitrary "low" number, I often set the skill DC to "highest score", meaning the player who scores the highest on the skill check (roll + bonus) succeeds, no matter how low their score ends up being. If only one player tries, they auto-succeed, but I don't tell them that.
Is this the same as what the GM in the OP is doing and does it make me a terrible GM?
I hope it doesn't, but I could see how it "cheats" the players in a similar way as they aren't going against a predetermined DC.
AntiDjinn |
Well, not so much squirm as demonstrate those narrative skills that a good storytelling DM needs. If you are fudging the mechanics (bumping the DC of even simple tasks so you need a 15 on the roll, not just the skill total, as the OP stated) and are telling a good enough story, then it should be completely seamless and not strain the suspension of disbelief. If it is obvious to your players ever time you apply a fiat and it is taking them out of the story, then they should be able to (in character) ask if their actions are important to the overall story arc.
Note: I did say in another post that fudging the rolls is fine and has its place. I would have had several total party wipes if I didn't overrule a few dice rolls here and there, But I don't overrule character actions or simply nerf the results of decisions they have made, nor do I boost DC's to make their character development pointless.
Anzyr |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is a perfect example of the reason the Stormwind fallacy exists. What happened to "mechanics and roleplaying are two unconnected things"? Yet here we are, privileging the mechanical rolls over the story aspects of the game.
There are different expectations in different groups. Some groups want to play battle chess, where every dice roll is sacred and the Rules must never be breached. That's ok. Some groups want to make an adventure story together, with the rules being quite flexible when story requires it. That's ok.
Uh, no the "rules are sacred" crowd is not privileging rolls over story. The two are mutually exclusive. A game (like mine) where the rules are sacred still has a story, it's just one that actually takes into account the rules. In fact, if your game doesn't take into account the abilities and rolls of the players in a consistent manner, you aren't playing a game, the GM is just telling you a story. And I came to play a game, not listen to a story.
That being said the GM told everyone up front "I'm going to be telling you a story, while you listen and occasionally make input subject to my approval." and the "players" are fine with that, then more power to that group.
Combat Monster |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The best way to illustrate the OPs comment is.kinda like Elder scrolls.
As you level, the random mooks everywhere suddenly egt stronger too.
Yet the locks never get above "Master" hard.
Also I can leave the room and make a sandwich while letting a group of average bandits assault my Skyrim hero. I'll return very much still alive and one shot them with my mighty weapon of doom.
I'm in the middle with the OP. While I think some rolls should be hard, I do think that focusing on skills should often make the task easier.
While breaking into the kings armory may be a chore, It should not take a natural roll of 15+ to break into the bakery to steal a sweetroll.
edit: Slight tweak on comment about tasks being easier with skills. Also noted my skyrim hero is still alive even after being beaten by hordes of bandits.
Snowblind |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The best way to illustrate the OPs comment is.kinda like Elder scrolls.
As you level, the random mooks everywhere suddenly egt stronger too.
What's the problem with that. It's totally fine for bandits to be walking around wearing suits of fullplate made of metals tainted by extra-dimensional energy that are worth a king's ransom. It wouldn't be a good story otherwise.
Besides, it makes sense.
Bob Bob Bob |
Serious question on a related topic: When I'm writing adventures, there are times I "need" the players to discover something or learn something in order to progress the story/plot. Often the info is best discovered via a skill check of some kind - Knowledge, Perception, whatever. In these situations, rather than picking some arbitrary "low" number, I often set the skill DC to "highest score", meaning the player who scores the highest on the skill check (roll + bonus) succeeds, no matter how low their score ends up being. If only one player tries, they auto-succeed, but I don't tell them that.
Is this the same as what the GM in the OP is doing and does it make me a terrible GM?
I hope it doesn't, but I could see how it "cheats" the players in a similar way as they aren't going against a predetermined DC.
Not the same. It's basically rolling just for the sake of rolling, but some people enjoy that. I know I always get a thrill throwing a pile of d6. It might be problematic if the players don't communicate with each other (since then maybe more than one should have been successful) but as long as the players tell each other things you're just figuring out which one remembers/solves the puzzle/whatever first.
Again, the problem with the OP is that the GM is not actually using the rules system. They're setting the DC by what dice roll is needed to succeed and nothing else. There's a thin veil of rules over it but the rules they're actually using are "the person with the highest modifier needs to roll a 15 or higher". If other people are close they might also have a chance of success (with a higher roll, of course) but by a certain point the difference between a focused character and a dabbler is way more than 5.
What you're doing is giving them plot exposition, regardless of what they roll on the dice. As far as I can tell the only difference between putting it in box text and reading it to the players and your method is that the players roll some dice first. And that's it.
Stereofm |
Uh, no the "rules are sacred" crowd is not privileging rolls over story. The two are mutually exclusive. A game (like mine) where the rules are sacred still has a story, it's just one that actually takes into account the rules. In fact, if your game doesn't take into account the abilities and rolls of the players in a consistent manner, you aren't playing a game, the GM is just telling you a story. And I came to play a game, not listen to a story.
Except the problem is often that playing the rules as sacred, there is no much challenge left, and it is often auto-win but wrapped in tedious rules-minutia, so you are not really playing a game, and with all the time you are spending on that, there is not much left room for the story part which is rushed.
A little compromise can go a long way to fix that (without the artificial DCs thing).
Anzyr |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anzyr wrote:Uh, no the "rules are sacred" crowd is not privileging rolls over story. The two are mutually exclusive. A game (like mine) where the rules are sacred still has a story, it's just one that actually takes into account the rules. In fact, if your game doesn't take into account the abilities and rolls of the players in a consistent manner, you aren't playing a game, the GM is just telling you a story. And I came to play a game, not listen to a story.
Except the problem is often that playing the rules as sacred, there is no much challenge left, and it is often auto-win but wrapped in tedious rules-minutia, so you are not really playing a game, and with all the time you are spending on that, there is not much left room for the story part which is rushed.
A little compromise can go a long way to fix that (without the artificial DCs thing).
How is it auto-win? If you know what you are doing with encounter design, it's not hard to make challenging, but technically CR appropriate encounters. And even if the player's do effortlessly crush the planned encounters how does that actually negatively impact the story? The story is the result of the player's actions after all, in this case, their successful actions. What does your undefined and unspecified "compromise" contribute the to story without removing player input?
AntiDjinn |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Serious question on a related topic: When I'm writing adventures, there are times I "need" the players to discover something or learn something in order to progress the story/plot. Often the info is best discovered via a skill check of some kind - Knowledge, Perception, whatever. In these situations, rather than picking some arbitrary "low" number, I often set the skill DC to "highest score", meaning the player who scores the highest on the skill check (roll + bonus) succeeds, no matter how low their score ends up being. If only one player tries, they auto-succeed, but I don't tell them that.
Is this the same as what the GM in the OP is doing and does it make me a terrible GM?
I hope it doesn't, but I could see how it "cheats" the players in a similar way as they aren't going against a predetermined DC.
If there is something that is a major plot terminator for an entire adventure, then it is generally a bad idea to have it be dependent on the results of single skill check or on the PC's asking a question that might be obvious to you, but isn't to them.
So if a Knowledge (History) check is what you have decided is going to give them the breadcrumb trail that leads to the next part of the adventure, and a PC makes it, then major props to the character whose recall of history propelled the adventure forward. If not, then you aren't bound to give it to them anyways, but there should be another way. Something they can do. Maybe the character uses a resource to re-roll the check. Or maybe they have to hit the library and do some research. Or they call in favors. Or maybe the single skill check was the easy way to get the information and instead they have to do it the hard way by beating or intimidating it out of someone. Or they might just come up with an intuitive leap that you never even considered that takes them to the next stage of the adventure.
lemeres |
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:The best way to illustrate the OPs comment is.kinda like Elder scrolls.
As you level, the random mooks everywhere suddenly egt stronger too.
Yet the locks never get above "Master" hard.
Also I can leave the room and make a sandwich while letting a group of average bandits assault my Skyrim hero. I'll return very much still alive and one shot them with my mighty weapon of doom.
I'm in the middle with the OP. While I think some rolls should be hard, I do think that focusing on skills should often make the task easier.
While breaking into the kings armory may be a chore, It should not take a natural roll of 15+ to break into the bakery to steal a sweetroll.
edit: Slight tweak on comment about tasks being easier with skills. Also noted my skyrim hero is still alive even after being beaten by hordes of bandits.
True...the way that your power scales versus the random opponents can get wonky. It is just the fact that you can synergize your abilities as you use smithing to craft a legendary bow, make the finest potion to boost your archery, dual enchant it with absorb health/fire (and depending on the coding, buffs to fire enchantments buff the dual enchanted steal health), adn then stealth up and get x3 on the bow hit. The enemies can't really do this- they tend to have randomly generated equipment, and it might not even entirely match their proficiencies.
So, when I can wander around and gain max out all of my important skills before even starting the first main quest after the intro... yeah... the enemies have to be scaled somehow. The nature of most table top games are a bit more linear (or least you don't level up at a fast enough pace for it to matter- you can spend 3 sessions on a sidequest and not gain more than a level or 2 depending on your play style- the GM can account for that by dropping an extra mook or two.)
Also, with skyrim at least (haven't seen much of the other games), it is technically possible to get past almost any lock even if you never leveled up lockpicking and never invested a perk in it. It can be annoyingly frustrating and take hundreds of lockpicks as you muddle your way through, but you can brute force it.
Lirya |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Serious question on a related topic: When I'm writing adventures, there are times I "need" the players to discover something or learn something in order to progress the story/plot. Often the info is best discovered via a skill check of some kind - Knowledge, Perception, whatever. In these situations, rather than picking some arbitrary "low" number, I often set the skill DC to "highest score", meaning the player who scores the highest on the skill check (roll + bonus) succeeds, no matter how low their score ends up being. If only one player tries, they auto-succeed, but I don't tell them that.Is this the same as what the GM in the OP is doing and does it make me a terrible GM?
I hope it doesn't, but I could see how it "cheats" the players in a similar way as they aren't going against a predetermined DC.
It isn't the same as setting a DC of roll 15+ on the fly, and it is a common technique to use when you want to info dump. But it isn't ideal because you are ignoring if PCs are investing in the skill or not.
A better solution for a knowledge check to advance plot, is to give a range of set DC (like you find in many paizo AP) AND include an NPC Sage or Library where the PCs can automatically gain the information they need to proceed the plot. If the PCs have someone who invested a lot into the relevant skill, they get extra information allowing them to better prepare for the adventure ahead. If the PCs have someone who invested a reasonable amount into the relevant skill, they get to know what they need to know to proceed with the plot, perhaps they will discuss what they know with the NPC Sage/Library, but the PC will have accomplished something compared to the world around him. If nobody can make the skill check, then the NPC Sage/Library will seek out the PCs and inform them of whatever plot important details they have to know to proceed.
For a Perception check that must be met to proceed, assuming that at least one PC has invested into Perception is a much safer assumption. But still, include a few fail safes such as a map indicating what and where the thing they need to find is, or a legend that can be deciphered.
Finally, you can always fall back on one of the classic tropes. Have the BBEG send a kill squad (or multiple kill squads) after the party (he does not realize the PCs failed at noticing/knowing a vital detail). The members of the kill squad can then be aware of the vital detail allowing multiple ways for the PCs to get back on track without being too heavy handed.
Chemlak |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He's not. People have weirdly gotten fixated on the idea that the GM is setting impossible tasks and/or railroading. He's doing neither of those things. He's creating artificial "challenge" by setting skill DCs to be 15+highest skill bonus in the party.
Just to point out that it's possible to read from the OP that the GM is creating an artificial challenge by setting the DC at 15+the skill bonus of whatever character attempts the check. So that the fighter with +2 needs a 15+ to climb the wall, but the rogue with +24 also needs 15+ to climb the same wall. Thus completely invalidating the rogue's choice to invest in climb.
Herald |
I could argue that you don't have to tell your players the DC number. You could simply ask them to Rolland you can tell them wether they succeed or not. Granted they could take 10 with every roll but that's on them.
In regards to social encounters and research it's my opinion that should be the norm. It gives the GM a chance to introduce macguffins and false facts when they don't make thier DCs.
(As a side note, I don't tell my players what ACs are, they have to figure that out through trial and error.)
chaoseffect |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could argue that you don't have to tell your players the DC number. You could simply ask them to Rolland you can tell them wether they succeed or not. Granted they could take 10 with every roll but that's on them.
In regards to social encounters and research it's my opinion that should be the norm. It gives the GM a chance to introduce macguffins and false facts when they don't make thier DCs.
(As a side note, I don't tell my players what ACs are, they have to figure that out through trial and error.)
You don't have to tell DCs, but at times it can be pretty obvious when the DM has arbitrarily decided that you aren't going to succeed. I may have rolled a 2 on the die but I still have a grand total of 35; if that's not enough to do whatever clearly simple and/or moderately difficult task I'm trying to do then I will call you on it.
As far as withholding enemy AC, I find that slows the game down without really improving anything. Players will have it ballparked after a couple attack rolls, and in the meantime them throwing numbers at me to confirm or deny just means it takes them longer to finish their turn. At high levels in particular I consider concealed AC to be especially wasteful; just tell me the AC in advance so I can get these 5 attacks, all of which have differing modifiers for attack and damage, calculated before my turn so you don't have to waste a few minutes watching me desperately math it out while our limited game time ticks away.
Doomed Hero |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM is basing the skill DCs off of character skill numbers in order to set arbitrarily "challenging" numbers for rolls, that's really super bad GMing.
Its also an opportunity for a funny/pointed teachable moment.
All you have to do is have someone with lower bonuses ask what the DCs are. Then when the GM sets the DC for that character, you have them call over the higher bonus character to make the check.
Snowblind |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the GM is basing the skill DCs off of character skill numbers in order to set arbitrarily "challenging" numbers for rolls, that's really super bad GMing.
Its also an opportunity for a funny/pointed teachable moment.
All you have to do is have someone with lower bonuses ask what the DCs are. Then when the GM sets the DC for that character, you have them call over the higher bonus character to make the check.
I think the GM isn't even doing that. It sounds like they are basically just making anything that isn't a 15+ on the dice autofail, regardless of bonuses.
Darklord Morius |
Well, i don't blame him to do this. If it's his style and you have fun with it, it's fine, it's your game after all.
But you have a problem, and i think you GM style will not change, so, here go a suggestion.
If he wants to set DCs, ask him to consider feats and abilities to the sum. So, if you need a 15 to pass a skill check, and you have skill focus, you should pass with a 12 (or 9 with 10 or more ranks). Same goes with attacks and enhancement bonuses, weapon focus, etc.
Hope that helps.
Herald |
Herald wrote:I could argue that you don't have to tell your players the DC number. You could simply ask them to Rolland you can tell them wether they succeed or not. Granted they could take 10 with every roll but that's on them.
In regards to social encounters and research it's my opinion that should be the norm. It gives the GM a chance to introduce macguffins and false facts when they don't make thier DCs.
(As a side note, I don't tell my players what ACs are, they have to figure that out through trial and error.)
You don't have to tell DCs, but at times it can be pretty obvious when the DM has arbitrarily decided that you aren't going to succeed. I may have rolled a 2 on the die but I still have a grand total of 35; if that's not enough to do whatever clearly simple and/or moderately difficult task I'm trying to do then I will call you on it.
As far as withholding enemy AC, I find that slows the game down without really improving anything. Players will have it ballparked after a couple attack rolls, and in the meantime them throwing numbers at me to confirm or deny just means it takes them longer to finish their turn. At high levels in particular I consider concealed AC to be especially wasteful; just tell me the AC in advance so I can get these 5 attacks, all of which have differing modifiers for attack and damage, calculated before my turn so you don't have to waste a few minutes watching me desperately math it out while our limited game time ticks away.
I play with other GMs as players, we agreed to this style, so to each their own. And if you want to call on someone who you think isn't playing fair be my guest. That's not the point I'm trying to make.
While I agree that shifting the numbers is cheating, I don't agree that players should automatically know if their activity is successful or not. Their skill points spent should give them a good idea if they will be successful, but not automatically tell them that they will succeed before they try. On the other hand, I don't play around with things that are auto successes. If their numbers beet the DC with picking up the dice I let them know they handle it easily.
I also let players make a check on things that I know they have no chance in hell of succeeding. Like doors they have no chance of opening. Once they fail I then give them feed back on how they might perceive why they failed.
The DM is the lens on how the player characters perceive the world. It's up to the players to determine how they characters feel about what they perceive. This is a trite thing to say, but I don't like shortcuts on this. Your millage may vary.
thorin001 |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think our boards have a consistency problem. While both the attitude expressed here ("Don't revise challenge levels to oppose PC investments, that defeats the point of investing") and the attitude expressed on other threads ("If your players are optimizing a lot, adjust encounters to keep challenging them") are good and valid concepts that I agree with, they don't exactly mesh, do they?
On the one hand, I want my players to feel like their build choices mean something.
On the other hand, optimizing is something they should only do to make their concept work. It shouldn't be used to get "better" at encounters—I mean, what benchmark are you even using to define "better"? If a level 3 alchemist is effectively level 7 because of his amazing build, I'm going to send CR 7 encounters against him (I'm putting the "mixed party" risks aside for now, since that's a whole other can). Encounters are supposed to be challenging. You can optimize to make your kooky sling-master viable, but you shouldn't bother optimizing to make your synthesist summoner the most powerful being on the battlefield. I'll just revise the battlefield. Instead of a flock of kobolds, you'll be facing a pack of troglodytes. The challenge sticks and your "winning"-geared optimization becomes a waste of time.
As such, I can understand why someone would "artificially" raise skill DCs so they're still challenging. I think it's misguided, but I don't think it's railroading. Actually, I think people are really doing the OP's GM a disservice here with their exaggerated examples. He's not making these tasks impossible. He's making them require decent rolls (15-20). Basically, he's trying to insert artificial challenge to keep things 'interesting'.
But skill checks aren't supposed to be interesting. Most of the time, they're supposed to be shortcuts. It's not graceful, but it's how the system is built. Screwing players out of their skill ranks is a very clumsy attempt at fixing it.
The two are not necessarily in conflict. People do not object to greater challenges, they object to the same challenge having higher DCs.
Take a basic obstacle. the pit. At 1st level it is a 10' wide gap and thus DC 10 to cross. If at 5th level you make it 15' wide with unstable edges (DC 17) no on will bat an eye. If you just say that since you are no 5th level a 10' pit is now DC 17 people will say WTF!?
Same basic concept with locks. A lousy DC 17 lock keeps the inn's stable door closed. Nobody complains when the local duke's personal treasure chest has a DC of 30. But many people will have an issue if just because you are higher level the stable door lock is now DC 30.
Same thing with town guards. At 1st level all of the town guards are level 1 warriors. When they are all 10th level Barbarians just because you have reached 10th level you have a problem.
thorin001 |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
thorin001 wrote:It seems a lot of people have missed the OP's point. An illustration of it goes something like this:
DM: "You come to a 10' chasm across the tunnel."
Player: "Okay, I get a running start and get a 22."
DM: "I don't care what your skills are, what did you roll on the d20?"
Player: "Huh? Well I rolled a 12, but I have a +10 modifier."
DM: You fall into the chasm, you needed to roll a 15 or better on the die."
Player: "But the DC is only 10 for a 10'."
DM: "The DC is whatever I say it is because DRAMA dammit!"how do you know that is what happened?
how does the PC know what the DC is? Meta gaming?
MORE often than not, its usually a player who has managed to memorize stuff in the rule books. "I got a 17, so I hit the goblin because goblins only have a 12 ac"
the character doesnt KNOW that stuff.... its out of game knowledge.
its also interesting to me the same people who insist its only a DC 10 to jump a chasm also completely ignore encumbrance.
I know because I read the OP's post. I made an exaggeration of his point so that it could not be missed. Apparently I underestimated the ability of some people to deliberately misinterpret things.
Bandw2 |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I play in a home game where the GM is very fair-minded (Most of the time). However there are times when the GM wants to up the challenge of the situation for I guess what they would call "story" or "drama". During these times the GM will adjust a DC to what he feels is a challenge for our characters. In practice this means taking account of our modifiers and setting the DC such that we can only succeed on a die roll of 15 or better.
What I find unfair about this is it completely ignores all of the choices and investments the player has made to improve that particular roll. For example if a player has Skill Focus, the bonus is disregarded because the number you have to roll on the die with or with out the feat is still 15. So while the feat helped get the player through many trials earlier in the game, when it comes to a time of "drama" say a "Boss Fight" the feat is not really beneficial at a time when the player probably needs it the most.
For the most part I've been quite about it and just been going along with it. What I would like to know is;
Does anyone else do this type of thing when they GM?
How common is this kind of thing in other/your home games?
If you witnessed this as a player what is the right thing to do?
PS: I'm not sure how many of the other players, if any, are bothered by this practice.
i'm not going to read the whole thread right now, nor even the messages immediately above me, I just want to post a single point.
This CAN be fine so long as they aren't arbitrary, a climb check can be made harder if it's raining, a knowledge check could be harder if it's disguised, or an acrobatics check can be harder if the rope you're walking across is swaying in the wind. Etc, if you just raise the DC it feels like padding but if you accompany it with actual detail it can feel like more of an accomplishment.
the secret fire |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eirikrautha wrote:This thread is a perfect example of the reason the Stormwind fallacy exists. What happened to "mechanics and roleplaying are two unconnected things"? Yet here we are, privileging the mechanical rolls over the story aspects of the game.
There are different expectations in different groups. Some groups want to play battle chess, where every dice roll is sacred and the Rules must never be breached. That's ok. Some groups want to make an adventure story together, with the rules being quite flexible when story requires it. That's ok.
Uh, no the "rules are sacred" crowd is not privileging rolls over story. The two are mutually exclusive. A game (like mine) where the rules are sacred still has a story, it's just one that actually takes into account the rules. In fact, if your game doesn't take into account the abilities and rolls of the players in a consistent manner, you aren't playing a game, the GM is just telling you a story. And I came to play a game, not listen to a story.
That being said the GM told everyone up front "I'm going to be telling you a story, while you listen and occasionally make input subject to my approval." and the "players" are fine with that, then more power to that group.
This is pretty much where I'm at on the issue, as well. A good DM should know the capabilities of the PCs in his party, and design his encounters appropriately. PCs who are really good in one area should be allowed to dominate that particular aspect of play without being walking auto-win buttons. It's really not that hard to do without fudging, but it does require forethought on the DM's part.
It's also important to set ground-rules from the beginning so that players can design characters who do not get retroactively nerfed. As a DM, you need to be pretty detail-oriented, and clearly communicate your hang-ups and expectations. Players in my games know, for example, that I'll smite anyone with a Diplomacy bonus higher than 10 with a lightning bolt, so they don't waste energy investing in the skill. It's fine for the DM to make executive decisions about how his world will run, but there needs to be transparency. Anything not expressly banned or altered from the first session of play should be allowed, and the DM has got to be a big boy and live with the consequences of his own oversights, even if it forces him to think on his feet. I find that fudging is almost always a product of poor preparation, laziness, plot-rigidity, or some combination of the above. Really not my cup of tea.
MeanMutton |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
AntiDjinn wrote:Back to the OP (who hasn't chimed back into this thread with more details, so going off the first post). If the DM is using impossible DC's (as in made-up after you roll and tell him what you got), foregone conclusions, and impassible obstacles to keep the party following the story, just point out those times when this type of storytelling strains verisimilitude.
Like: ...
Ah, the ol "derail the game" solution. The answer to that, for GMs listening and wondering what oh what to do, is to respond "Maybe all his magical gear was stolen some time ago. Perhaps by the rest of the party that made it past here. Of course, you have no way to know. Moving on, Legend Loring, or do you guys need a break for a few moments?"
GMs being annoying are not cool. Players doing it are also not cool.
As a GM, I love these moments. Why not let the guys go off on a tangent? If they're having fun, awesome.
M1k31 |
I think our boards have a consistency problem. While both the attitude expressed here ("Don't revise challenge levels to oppose PC investments, that defeats the point of investing") and the attitude expressed on other threads ("If your players are optimizing a lot, adjust encounters to keep challenging them") are good and valid concepts that I agree with, they don't exactly mesh, do they?
On the one hand, I want my players to feel like their build choices mean something.
On the other hand, optimizing is something they should only do to make their concept work. It shouldn't be used to get "better" at encounters—I mean, what benchmark are you even using to define "better"? If a level 3 alchemist is effectively level 7 because of his amazing build, I'm going to send CR 7 encounters against him (I'm putting the "mixed party" risks aside for now, since that's a whole other can). Encounters are supposed to be challenging. You can optimize to make your kooky sling-master viable, but you shouldn't bother optimizing to make your synthesist summoner the most powerful being on the battlefield. I'll just revise the battlefield. Instead of a flock of kobolds, you'll be facing a pack of troglodytes. The challenge sticks and your "winning"-geared optimization becomes a waste of time.
As such, I can understand why someone would "artificially" raise skill DCs so they're still challenging. I think it's misguided, but I don't think it's railroading. Actually, I think people are really doing the OP's GM a disservice here with their exaggerated examples. He's not making these tasks impossible. He's making them require decent rolls (15-20). Basically, he's trying to insert artificial challenge to keep things 'interesting'.
Honestly... that's still a bullcrap excuse
If you see a build optimized in a skill, you should ask them "what are you attempting?" if they want to handwave that kind of check, let them do it...
So what if he can disable every trap? it just mean you make a bunch of troll traps or engineer a few situations the character separates from the character and need to figure out their own way past it...
You have high perception? you just make a bunch of impossible stealth builds of a nonviolent stalker bent follow the party and "ping" the characters perception a lot.
Your other option is to approach the player and say "look, I want your character to try disabling traps in a special way, you have to roll a 15, but your character disables them from farther away, getting bonus to DC's and likely remaining unharmed or just attempting to look like a boss while doing so.
Challenges are supposed to be hard, the everyday life of your adventurer is not, you don't make a save DC every time you put on a boot, or a Fort Save for wearing them all day to prevent trenchfoot. Fiction is full of "handwave" characters.
Combat Monster |
I know because I read the OP's post. I made an exaggeration of his point so that it could not be missed. Apparently I underestimated the ability of some people to deliberately misinterpret things.
I think most people here have missed the point that only a natural roll of 15+ is being considered by that GM the OP speaks of.
It's almost like our ranks in perception are not being applied and only those who are naturally rolling high enough upon entering the thread are getting it.
M1k31 |
thorin001 wrote:
I know because I read the OP's post. I made an exaggeration of his point so that it could not be missed. Apparently I underestimated the ability of some people to deliberately misinterpret things.
I think most people here have missed the point that only a natural roll of 15+ is being considered by that GM the OP speaks of.
It's almost like our ranks in perception are not being applied and only those who are naturally rolling high enough upon entering the thread are getting it.
It's a good thing I brought my loaded D20 for perception to the internet....
HWalsh |
Serious question on a related topic: When I'm writing adventures, there are times I "need" the players to discover something or learn something in order to progress the story/plot. Often the info is best discovered via a skill check of some kind - Knowledge, Perception, whatever. In these situations, rather than picking some arbitrary "low" number.
My solution, at my table, is the GM screen. Sense Motive, Perception, and other similar skill rolls are rolled by one person... Me.
Behind a screen.
You don't get to see it. I don't tell you what you rolled. I tell you the result of a roll, the outcome.
Player: "I check the door for traps!"
Me: (Rolls) "What is your bonus?"
Player: "Plus 12."
Me: (Checks DC Chart) "You don't see anything unusual on the door. If there is a trap, you don't see it."
Same with Perception.
I'm totally honest 90% of the time. The other 10% is due to plot. If I need a PC to see it and they don't? I'll probably give it to the person who came cosest to the DC.
If I need the PCs to miss the tracks left by Evil McBadRogue then they do.
This is also useful for me when I don't want Scythy McDarkKnight to confirm his nat 20 against the PC Squishy McBlastyMage.
Squishy McBlastyMage is level 4 he has 16 HP total and is sitting at 12 at the moment. ScythyMcDarkKnight has a +3 Strength and just confirmed a critical. From the weapon alone he's doing a lot before strength and power attack come into play. I calculate his damage being enough to kill Squishy on the spot. Instead I say, "The Warrior slashes you across the chest for 13 damage. You stagger and fall and begin to feel your lifeblood ooze out."
Giving them more than enough time to save Squishy.
DominusMegadeus |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm totally honest 90% of the time. The other 10% is due to plot. If I need a PC to see it and they don't? I'll probably give it to the person who came cosest to the DC.
If I need the PCs to miss the tracks left by Evil McBadRogue then they do.
So if you want him to get away, it doesn't matter that I'm an Inquisitor with max ranks in Survival, a 1/2 level bonus and 16 wisdom?
If you needed us to follow him for the plot, my 8 Wis Rogue with no ranks in Survival just magically finds the trail anyway?
Crimeo |
Making up DCs on the spot is fine if you don't want to slow down the game. I'd also support jiggling DCs randomly plus OR minus 1 or 2 to stop people from gaming the system precisely to always hit exactly their metagame knowledge of a book-written check, etc.
However, if you are making up or adjusting DCs, it should be in a fair way based on the actual difficulty of the task. Not based in any way on the PC's skill. That's definitely the part that's wrong about this.
Note that the DCs will generally correlate with skills, because as you adventure in higher level places there are naturally higher level hazards. But this should flow logically from the actual description of the risk and the situation, not like a pit trap is DC 5 to notice on Monday and then a pit trap is DC 12 to notice on Wednesday because you gained a +7 modifier.
If I need the PCs to miss the tracks left by Evil McBadRogue then they do.
And this amounts to the same sketchiness as the OP. If you want him to not be very threatened by your PCs, just make him a CR+8 character when they first meet him.
But still let them track him if they make the super hard roll. At which point ... what? They now know where he is and still can't realistically kill him. Okay? Maybe they found his lair. Cool, good info to file away, PCs feel accomplished, easy to roll into the adventure later when relevant.
As for wanting the PCs to notice something, the classic DM advice here is to give PCs at least 3 different solutions to notice that you know of. Then don't give them any auto-wins, but they'll still be okay because they have 3 (+ anything else you didn't think of) chances.
HWalsh |
Quote:If I need the PCs to miss the tracks left by Evil McBadRogue then they do.And this amounts to the same sketchiness as the OP. If you want him to not be very threatened by your PCs, just make him a CR+8 character when they first meet him.
But still let them track him if they make the super hard roll. At which point ... what? They now know where he is and still can't realistically kill him. Okay? Maybe they found his lair. Cool, good info to file away, PCs feel accomplished, easy to roll into the adventure later when relevant.
As for wanting the PCs to notice something, the classic DM advice here is to give PCs at least 3 different solutions to notice that you know of. Then don't give them any auto-wins, but they'll still be okay because they have 3 (+ anything else you didn't think of) chances.
No.
Simply put. No. GMs are not constrained by the rules. Why should I have to inflate his CR?
And no. The classic DM advice, from every single DMG published since the very first, is to fudge the die roll. Every DMG, GMG, and every game since day 1 has told GM's to fudge when they need to fudge.
HWalsh |
Addressing the point:
The GM is god. Rule 0. This is not an MMORPG where the rules rule all. The GM is free to do whatever he or she needs to do to keep the story on track.
So, to put it this way, lets say the PCs do one shot the big bad.
Meh.
Handwave it.
They get back, they find out that the bad guy is still very much alive and sitting at his throne. The PCs are perplexed, how can he be there when they killed him, they know they did.
Now you have another story hook.
Was it really him? Was someone trying to impersonate him? Did they just foil some plot to replace the noble with an imposter? If so... Why?
How is the baddie still alive? Meh. Simulacrum, clone, maybe you did kill him but he had access to a minion to use magic (maybe a ring of wishes?) that restored him.
You can hand wave the plot however you want and keep moving. Never be afraid to fiat, fudge, and hand wave if it improves the story.
Crimeo |
Why should I have to inflate his CR?
So that you are making him powerful by means of stats and abilities are defined, thus allowing the PCs to find them out / deal with them in an objective way.
I.e. to stop the DM from being found out to be obviously cheating when he is backed into a corner with "and why exactly can't I do that?" This kills immersion and freedom in a campaign.
Notice that I said "found out to be cheating" as the problem, not "cheating itself."
The classic DM advice, from every single DMG published since the very first, is to fudge the die roll.
That's completely different, due to the distinction above of "finding out you're cheating" versus getting away with it. No PC can ever prove that you fudged a die roll behind a screen. Thus, THIS is good advice. As long as you are actually literally fudging dice rolls (as in, changing the number between the limits of 1 and 20 with actual modifiers), then the results will always be plausible and immersive. And note that unless your villain's opposed modifier is higher than any the PCs can achieve with any buffs, then dice fudging is still not a guaranteed success, and you should still not be telling PCs that they simply don't get an opportunity to respond.
As opposed to "Guy escapes, no save, no reaction allowed" which is NOT good advice and is obviously cheating, thus breaking plausibility and immersion. And even if you act like it was the result of a die roll, and humor the PCs with a futile roll, you're still treading on thin ice if that roll was still implausible for him to have won even with a 20. If that becomes clear for whatever reason, then you've ruined the immersion and cheapened the game and the story.
Crimeo |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can hand wave the plot however you want and keep moving. Never be afraid to fiat, fudge, and hand wave if it improves the story.
I would beg to differ that soap opera style "HE WAS A CLONE ALL ALONG" plots qualify as "improving the story" 99% of the time. It qualifies as making it into a soap opera. A soap opera about a railroad. Which usually makes me as a player get bored and start looking forward to going home where I can read actual novels written by novelists who weren't hamstrung by pretending to be otherwise.
The great majority of the time, if PCs kill your bad guy, you should tell a story about a world in which the PCs killed your bad guy, if you want to tell the best RPG story.
Chengar Qordath |
4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fiat and fudging are valid GM tools, but they have to be used judiciously if you don't want to annoy your players. Badly executed fiat rulings can really piss of your players and lead to games breaking up. And I'm speaking from personal experience on that point.
In one game where I was player, we were in the middle of big "find a cure to the evil plague" plotline. After a couple sessions of searching and dungeon crawling we finally found the cure, which was protected by a nasty shapeshifter druid. The GM obviously expected us to lose/have to retreat, but thanks to good tactics and a few lucky rolls we managed to win the fight.
Seconds after the bad guy went down, right as we were about to get the cure for the plague, a random NPC wizard ran into the room and teleported us all out. No save. No option to avoid the teleportation. We weren't allowed to grab the cure before being teleported away. And we couldn't go back to the dungeon we'd just cleared because we didn't know how to get there from where we'd been sent to.
Needless to say, nobody showed up for the next session.
memorax |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it all depends on the situation. I would say 90% of the time I keep the DC as is. The other 10% I might increase the DCs. Even then I use it once and awhile. After a point players being to suspect and may resent it.
The GM is god. Rule 0. This is not an MMORPG where the rules rule all. The GM is free to do whatever he or she needs to do to keep the story on track.
Yeah..no. Any DM who plays " I am the DM, I am god at the table. Obey my every whim". Better pray he is the only DM for miles. Or rapidly find himself with no players and maybe even blacklisted. I'm not saying players should have all the power far from it. It's a cooperative effort imo. Having the BBEG escape all the time no matter the skill levels of the players. Or consistently failing to disable traps leads to frustrated and unhappy players. If you think pulling the "DM is god" card is going to make it better or worse the players accept it. Good luck.
One thing I have learned from playing many years in the hobby a DM has as much power as the players are willing to give them. Alienate players and you don't have a group. It's happened to me in my younger years as a DM where I taught I was god. I learned to adapt and change my style. I'm better for it. DM is god indeed.
HWalsh |
I think it all depends on the situation. I would say 90% of the time I keep the DC as is. The other 10% I might increase the DCs. Even then I use it once and awhile. After a point players being to suspect and may resent it.
HWalsh wrote:
The GM is god. Rule 0. This is not an MMORPG where the rules rule all. The GM is free to do whatever he or she needs to do to keep the story on track.
Yeah..no. Any DM who plays " I am the DM, I am god at the table. Obey my every whim". Better pray he is the only DM for miles. Or rapidly find himself with no players and maybe even blacklisted. I'm not saying players should have all the power far from it. It's a cooperative effort imo. Having the BBEG escape all the time no matter the skill levels of the players. Or consistently failing to disable traps leads to frustrated and unhappy players. If you think pulling the "DM is god" card is going to make it better or worse the players accept it. Good luck.
One thing I have learned from playing many years in the hobby a DM has as much power as the players are willing to give them. Alienate players and you don't have a group. It's happened to me in my younger years as a DM where I taught I was god. I learned to adapt and change my style. I'm better for it. DM is god indeed.
You are confusing the idea of using it when necessary and using it all the time. Anything overused is bad. And no, I tell my players, "I am the God of this game. If you have a problem with something, bring it up after game." But no. I am still the God of the game and the ultimate arbiter of the rules.
If the BBEG always gets away that is bad storytelling.
The PCs ultimately are supposed to win. If the BBEG has to flee that should be a win for the heroes. It should not be done time and again. Period.
If you need to do it though. Do it. The players, if you are a DM worth any salt, are not going to be super angry over it. If you do this to the point that it happens all the time as opposed to only when needed (around 10% of the time) then you are gold.
Also how are the PCs ever going to know if the enemy didn't get away or not. Maybe the NPC has a magical item that gives him a higher bonus? They have no way to know unless you give them a sheet of the NPC.
Again you should ONLY do this when it is necessary. However you should never be afraid to do it.
If you need to have an enemy that can only be killed by a stake made from special holy wood then... Do so... If the PCs go, "No! You can't do that! That isn't possible!" Then you should shake your head, you made the rules, you made the NPC, and you are ultimately the final say.
Crimeo |
2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also how are the PCs ever going to know if the enemy didn't get away or not. Maybe the NPC has a magical item that gives him a higher bonus?
I should get a spellcraft check to see if I can identify such an item, for one.
I should get to try and cast dispel magic on the item. Even if not identified I should get to guess and be right if I actually guess an actual item correctly.
I should get the chance to cast immediate action spells like bouyancy to force concentration if something like dimension door.
If I'm an arcanist, I should get to use my immediate counterspell response if I have that exploit.
Other things besides getting away can be restricted to you as options if I know you're an annoying GM who changes stories. For example, if at some point in the fight I channel positive energy, and the BBEG heals from it, then he cannot later turn out to be a simulacrum.
If I get a surprise lucky kill on a BBEG I can immediately cast "Blood Biography" from a handy scroll to force you to commit to certain facts right now.
If the BBEG is just unconscious or whatnot, and I'm high enough level, I can flesh to stone him so that he is not dead and cannot clone or resurrect, then soften earth and stone, dissolve it in water, and dribble the clay slip into a river over days and days.
Etc.
You dont KNOW what players may want to or be able to legally do if you just try to steamroll over their turns with forced story.