You Can, But You Really Can't

[Catullus64]

A little bit of a rant thread, I will admit, about some GM behavior that I find obnoxious. I dub it the "You Can, But You Really Can't" Attitude. When a player wants to attempt something a little outside the box, particularly in combat, this GM will notionally allow the attempt, but present so much resistance as to make the whole thing feel useless.

Here's just the final straw that made me mad enough to post about it. We were fighting a Young Blue Dragon in a canyon, and my Fighter had an idea.

Spoiler

Show

Me: I want to sink my grappling hook into the dragon's wings so it can't fly away.

GM: Shouldn't you just attack it?

Me: I want to make sure it can't get away or strafe us.

GM: You should really just attack it.

Me: (Supressing irritation; these kinds of exchanges have been going on all night) Advice noted. I throw my grappling hook.

GM: Ok. Roll to hit. (I roll and handily beat the dragon's AC.) Ok. Your grappling hook sticks in the dragon's wing. (Some rounds of combat pass, the dragon is severely wounded.) The dragon is going to take to the air and fly 200 feet away.

Me: I try to pull it back down.

GM: Make a Strength check.

Me: (Rolls) Woohoo! Natural 20! That's 24 total.

GM: (Rolls behind screen; I suppose I cannot prove that the dragon didn't honestly roll higher, but I was suspicious). The dragon is too strong, and takes off anyway.

Me: I'm still holding the rope, right? If it takes off, I'm going with it.

GM: Actually, when the dragon beats your check, it rips the hook free from its wing. It flies away.

Me: (Clenching my fists under the table) Cool.

I suppose if I have to make productive discussion out of this vent, it would be to advise that if you're a GM, and you don't think what a player is attempting is reasonable, say so, give your reasoning, and move on. Don't say that they can do it, but then passive-aggressively contrive rolls and circumstances which ensure that it fails. I know that as a player, I am not owed success when I attempt something, but the GM's attitude throughout the whole thing made it very clear that he resented my coloring outside his lines. Whatever his intentions were (and I try to assume they were good) it was an extremely annoying dynamic.

[JNAProductions]

This is why, when reasonable, I just straight-up give the players the DC of tasks and elaborate what the results will mean.

In this instance, I would've gone with something like...

Roll an attack with 2d20. If one d20 is a hit, you can get the grappling hook into the dragon, but not its wing. If both hit, you can get it into the wing.
If the hook is lodged into the dragon but not the wing, you can use the rope to try and tether it. Won't be easy (dragons are strong) but you can at least try, with opposed Strength (Athletics) checks.
If the hook gets into the wing, its fly speed will be dropped by [Some amount, but not quite halved. Don't have the stats in front of me to see what'd be reasonable] and the dragon will have Disadvantage on Strength (Athletics) checks opposed by whoever's got the rope to try and fly away. It can, of course, land and attempt without any Disadvantage, but then it's on the ground.

And, for what it's worth, I'm with you all the way on your frustration. It's better for a DM to say "No, you cannot," if they don't think something is possible, rather than "Yes, but there's gonna be so many hurdles you can't."

[Mastikator]

... why wouldn't the dragon just cut the rope on its turn?

Actually your DM missed a perfect opportunity to straight up end your character, they could've agreed that you come with, still fly 200 feet into the air then cut the rope, making your character take massive fall damage, separated from the party, swoop down and finish the job. And then fly back to safety.

-

But really, your DM should've just said "that's not going to stop the dragon from flying, even if you succeed" if they decided it wasn't going to work.

[JNAProductions]

... why wouldn't the dragon just cut the rope on its turn?

Easy-that takes an attack, and it's focused on taking down the party.

[Psyren]

Me: I try to pull it back down.

GM: Make a Strength check.

Me: (Rolls) Woohoo! Natural 20! That's 24 total.

GM: (Rolls behind screen; I suppose I cannot prove that the dragon didn't honestly roll higher, but I was suspicious). The dragon is too strong, and takes off anyway.

I can't speak for every system - but assuming you were playing 5e, this is where your DM screwed up. If they knew what you were trying to do ("I pull it back down") was impossible, then they shouldn't have called for a roll in the first place - DMG 237.

Me: I'm still holding the rope, right? If it takes off, I'm going with it.

GM: Actually, when the dragon beats your check, it rips the hook free from its wing. It flies away.

Me: (Clenching my fists under the table) Cool.

And this is the second place they screwed up, above and beyond the screwup with the roll itself - making your choice to hang onto the rope not matter.

[Dr.Samurai]

It seems to me you were both rubbing each other the wrong way. You were irritated, by your own admission, and in fairness to your DM, they never gave you the go ahead; seems like you insisted and said you were going to take the action, and they went with it.

Now I get your point; they should not have gone with it if they were just going to make it not matter in the end anyway.

I think my point to you would be that next time try to suppress your frustration long enough to pause the exchange and course correct the dialogue. Instead of you two going "I want to" "you shouldn't", you can say "I really want to try and grapple this dragon with the hook to prevent it from escaping. Do you think that's possible? Because if so I want to do that." Or ask "Why do you keep saying I should just attack it? I think it would be cool to try this instead." Try to get to the bottom of the disagreement.

Sorry if this seems obvious, but in reading your account of it it seems like a bit of change might be useful on both sides of this.

[kyoryu]

This is why I'm a fan of rolling in the open, and announcing your rules interpretation before you roll.

And if something just can't happen, then say that.

I feel like there's a lot of bad GM advice that boils down to "don't be honest with your players". People take the "keeping secrets" and "curating the experience" part of the job to too far of an extreme.

[KorvinStarmast]

... why wouldn't the dragon just cut the rope on its turn?

Actually your DM missed a perfect opportunity to straight up end your character, they could've agreed that you come with, still fly 200 feet into the air then cut the rope, making your character take massive fall damage, separated from the party, swoop down and finish the job. And then fly back to safety.

.

20 d6 averages 75 damage, bludgeoning, from the fall and the falling party now has the prone condition. Depending on their level, they may also have the unconscious condition or be dead by that massive damage rule.

As to the "give 'em enough rope" style of DMing, this was literally a case where the DM should have allowed the PC to hang on, or try to.

[Ionathus]

(My experience is with 5e but this happens everywhere in most TTRPGs honestly)

I'd like to chime in that while, yes, this is often the product of passive-aggression or a hostile DM actively trying to railroad, it's probably even more common subconsciously. I catch myself doing some version of this all the time, and I like to think of myself as a generally Good Boy when it comes to DMing.

I call them Attrition Checks: because I (subconsciously) don't have faith in the basic premise, but I don't want to outright say "no," I just keep moving the goalposts until the player gives up. A single Acrobatics check to jump and grab onto something becomes an Athletics check to make the jump, followed by an Acrobatics check to catch the thing, followed by a CON save to maintain grip, followed by a Perception check to notice the crumbling stone or whatever...Thankfully, my players will almost always either make a roll so good that I can't wiggle my way out of it, or they'll use some other mechanic (spell, magic item, class ability) that unambiguously gives an advantage, or often they'll just react in a frustrated tone that makes me realize I'm standing in the way of a good idea.

This Coastline Paradox-style problem with adjudicating success exists for loads of TTRPGs (though the degree varies based on how ambiguous the system is). Having a human arbiter of the world, and thus a human determining what "success" looks like, you're going to have different levels of granularity between DMs. One DM might only require a single Persuasion check to carry an entire NPC conversation -- and a different DM might require an Insight, a Persuasion, an Investigation, and an Intimidation check for that exact same interaction. Is one more fair than the other? That depends on the type of game you want to play and how much of a good-faith effort the DM is making to translate your actions into mechanics. There's no clean solution to this.

The best guidepost I've found is to try to compare any unique requests by my players to already-existing mechanics. A player wants to make a "called shot" on a boss monster (like OP's dragon-grappling example)? If I think it's a thing their PC could feasibly do, I try to match the power levels with, say, Battlemaster Maneuvers or a monk's Martial Arts effects. Not giving them free and unlimited access to the features, of course -- but comparing it to that helps me a lot with this "Attrition Checks" thing. Example: A PC wants to spend their action achieving something that a 5th-level Battlemaster fighter could do on a failed enemy saving throw? It makes sense that would cost one action and be gated behind a single successful ability check...but requiring 2 or 3 checks is overkill. It's not that powerful an ability. Meanwhile, if a PC wants to get creative with spellcasting, magic items, or consumables, and their goal is to replicate a 5th-level spell, that's probably gonna be a bigger cost. Worth an action, some resources, and maybe 2 successful checks at least (with worse -- but not zero -- outcome if the checks fail).

TL;DR - Comparing the PC's desired outcome to an effect that already exists in your system is a great way to gauge the power level and how hard it should be for them to pull off. Obviously don't always say yes to everything, but you can usually arrive at an interpretation everyone's happy with. And if you can't, tell them right away so they don't waste their limited actions on it.

[NichG]

Eh, honestly, by the description of the conversation, you (the OP) were 'are you sure?'d twice. And the second time was even an explicit 'you should not do this'. The GM could have been even more clear about their intent here, but I do not get 'you can do this' from that conversation. I get 'you shouldn't do this', 'I do it anyhow', 'guess what it doesn't do what you thought, and I warned you'.

[Telok]

Its long been an issue with d&d not having any real stunt bonuses and pretty lousy guidance/examples. As GM I always try to remember to ask the why/goal of the action and default to 'yes but...' answers. It gets better in systems with dedicated stunting rules and explicit bonuses & guidance for them. Plus it should never add more than a single average difficulty roll to succeed. At best you should be able to adjucate the action with a normal sub-system in the game, like using the normal game grappling or disarming rolls for rope tricks on opponents.

A big thing I try for (not perfect but trying) is having the player decide how a stunt fails, with maybe a little negotiation about side effects.

But yeah, I don't do stunts when playing d&d. The combat system is so nailed down, precise, and pure exception based, that it pushes gms towards eliminating them and wasting your turn through extra rolls that usually have near 50% fail rates.

[Ixtellor]

The red flag for me was:
GM "Shouldn't you just attack it?"

Why is the GM telling/suggesting what you should do?

This guy clearly doesn't care about player agency or isn't experienced enough to guide players without railroading them.

As other people said, he (the GM) handled it poorly in all regards.

[kyoryu]

(My experience is with 5e but this happens everywhere in most TTRPGs honestly)

I'd like to chime in that while, yes, this is often the product of passive-aggression or a hostile DM actively trying to railroad, it's probably even more common subconsciously. I catch myself doing some version of this all the time, and I like to think of myself as a generally Good Boy when it comes to DMing.

I call them Attrition Checks: because I (subconsciously) don't have faith in the basic premise, but I don't want to outright say "no," I just keep moving the goalposts until the player gives up. A single Acrobatics check to jump and grab onto something becomes an Athletics check to make the jump, followed by an Acrobatics check to catch the thing, followed by a CON save to maintain grip, followed by a Perception check to notice the crumbling stone or whatever...Thankfully, my players will almost always either make a roll so good that I can't wiggle my way out of it, or they'll use some other mechanic (spell, magic item, class ability) that unambiguously gives an advantage, or often they'll just react in a frustrated tone that makes me realize I'm standing in the way of a good idea.

Yeah, exactly.

The thing with repeated rolls is that:

1. "Roll until you fail" inevitably results in failure.
2. "Roll until you succeed" inevitably results in success.

In most cases I try to handle the actual goal with one roll. In cases where that's not possible, I prefer to set up either some kind of "hit points" for the goal or to be explicit about "you need n out of m rolls to succeed at this".

It's definitely one of the things where the "default" way of handling the situation can lead to inadvertently pushing towards a given result.

This Coastline Paradox-style problem with adjudicating success exists for loads of TTRPGs (though the degree varies based on how ambiguous the system is). Having a human arbiter of the world, and thus a human determining what "success" looks like, you're going to have different levels of granularity between DMs. One DM might only require a single Persuasion check to carry an entire NPC conversation -- and a different DM might require an Insight, a Persuasion, an Investigation, and an Intimidation check for that exact same interaction. Is one more fair than the other? That depends on the type of game you want to play and how much of a good-faith effort the DM is making to translate your actions into mechanics. There's no clean solution to this.

A very good analogy.

The cleanest you can get is to basically what I said before - some kind of hp/progress clock/etc., collapse to a single roll when possible, or up front declare it will take a certain success-to-failure ratio.

The best guidepost I've found is to try to compare any unique requests by my players to already-existing mechanics. A player wants to make a "called shot" on a boss monster (like OP's dragon-grappling example)? If I think it's a thing their PC could feasibly do, I try to match the power levels with, say, Battlemaster Maneuvers or a monk's Martial Arts effects.

Right, it's a good way to start that calibration, and figure out what is/is not feasible, especially taking how situational the maneuver is (eg, if throwing dirt in peoples' faces worked as well as people want it to, then every fight would start with that)

Not giving them free and unlimited access to the features, of course -- but comparing it to that helps me a lot with this "Attrition Checks" thing. Example: A PC wants to spend their action achieving something that a 5th-level Battlemaster fighter could do on a failed enemy saving throw? It makes sense that would cost one action and be gated behind a single successful ability check...but requiring 2 or 3 checks is overkill. It's not that powerful an ability. Meanwhile, if a PC wants to get creative with spellcasting, magic items, or consumables, and their goal is to replicate a 5th-level spell, that's probably gonna be a bigger cost. Worth an action, some resources, and maybe 2 successful checks at least (with worse -- but not zero -- outcome if the checks fail).

I like the way you think. I'm also willing to lower the requirements if a maneuver is very situationally/environmentally dependent. Do that, figure out how you're going to adjudicate the whole thing, communicate that, and follow through on it.

Eh, honestly, by the description of the conversation, you (the OP) were 'are you sure?'d twice. And the second time was even an explicit 'you should not do this'. The GM could have been even more clear about their intent here, but I do not get 'you can do this' from that conversation. I get 'you shouldn't do this', 'I do it anyhow', 'guess what it doesn't do what you thought, and I warned you'.

Ehhhhh... I'm kind of an anti-fan of "are you sure?" In that case I'd rather either have the GM say how they're going to run it, or just say it's not viable, or just flat up say "yeah, I'm not going down that road, stick with things that have rules."

Its long been an issue with d&d not having any real stunt bonuses and pretty lousy guidance/examples. As GM I always try to remember to ask the why/goal of the action and default to 'yes but...' answers. It gets better in systems with dedicated stunting rules and explicit bonuses & guidance for them. Plus it should never add more than a single average difficulty roll to succeed. At best you should be able to adjucate the action with a normal sub-system in the game, like using the normal game grappling or disarming rolls for rope tricks on opponents.

Yeah. I think you can do multiple rolls, too, but it needs to not be "single success" or "single failure". Either some kind of progress tracking, or require a certain number of successes.

But yeah, I don't do stunts when playing d&d. The combat system is so nailed down, precise, and pure exception based, that it pushes gms towards eliminating them and wasting your turn through extra rolls that usually have near 50% fail rates.

Also a fair answer, just communicate it clearly.

[Ionathus]

Eh, honestly, by the description of the conversation, you (the OP) were 'are you sure?'d twice. And the second time was even an explicit 'you should not do this'. The GM could have been even more clear about their intent here, but I do not get 'you can do this' from that conversation. I get 'you shouldn't do this', 'I do it anyhow', 'guess what it doesn't do what you thought, and I warned you'.

"Are you sure?" is a safeguard for when players have phenomenally misread a situation and are about to get themselves killed. It's for reminding players about the stakes and circumstances of a world that they don't know as well as the GM does. It's not a Seal of Disapproval that the GM breaks out every time a player makes a suboptimal (according to the GM) combat choice.

Me: I want to make sure it can't get away or strafe us.

GM: You should really just attack it.

A GM should never say something like this.

It's the GM's job to adjudicate the world and provide enough context for the players to make gameplay and story decisions. The GM tells the players what their PCs are literally capable of -- what they can and cannot do, gameplay-wise. But the GM should never tell players what they should or should not do.

If a GM doesn't think something is possible, they ought to say it outright. "The dragon is too big, powerful, and magical -- your grappling hook won't be able to pin it down." You're not telling the player that you think their choice is stupid or suboptimal or whatever -- you're telling them that their intention is clearly impossible in this world and their PC would know that, probably to a degree that the player hasn't internalized (likely because the GM did a bad job of describing but let's give GM the benefit of the doubt here, eh? ).

I mean, look, I get it. I've had players make some truly bonkers tactical decisions. I gave the fighter PC a magic item that lets her cast a single cantrip and she chose Produce Flame, and now she makes frequent use of it in combat. She already had a magical flying sword that she could make constant thrown attacks with, and she prefers Produce Flame. Does it bother me that the 12th-level fighter is spending her action on "one attack, +6 to hit, 3d8 fire damage" instead of "three attacks, +10 to hit, 2d6+7, plus 1d6 force damage"? You bet it does. But guess what? She's having fun. And that's the only thing that matters.

It's my job as GM to create an interesting world to challenge and engage the players. It's my job to clearly explain how that world works, and what the players should reasonably expect from their actions. It's none of my ****ing business what they choose to do with that information.

Edit: replies to some ninja comments

2. "Roll until you succeed" inevitably results in success.

This is probably even more widespread as a GM method of "cheating", but nobody complains because PC success often feels good and pushes the story forward -- especially for the types of checks that become "roll until you succeed" since those are usually annoying or fiddly with low stakes.

The only improvement you can really do is eliminate them, but they're pretty harmless even if you don't. Sometimes the goblin brain just wants to roll the math rocks before we progress the story

A very good analogy.

The cleanest you can get is to basically what I said before - some kind of hp/progress clock/etc., collapse to a single roll when possible, or up front declare it will take a certain success-to-failure ratio.

Thank you! I thought of the analogy right as I was typing and realized "oh wow, yeah that really fits the experience I've had." Fun to hear it resonated with others.

I really like your "progress clock" approach to this. I have envisioned challenges like that before -- a challenge that requires, say, 80 total "points" of "damage" for success, but the "damage" is a 1-for-1 ratio for Charisma checks or whatever. Like, you have to win over an angry crowd, and the Paladin's "I roll 24 for Persuasion" is obviously great, but even the Barbarian's "I roll 5 for Intimidation" makes tangible progress.

Have you had any experiences using that kind of progress clock or "hp" mechanic in game? I'd love to hear how it balances. Obviously I'm in 5e but I imagine it could translate.

(eg, if throwing dirt in peoples' faces worked as well as people want it to, then every fight would start with that)

Exactly. I'm thankful that my players don't try to take all of my "one time" rulings as new things they can just, like, do every time now. Though if I'm being honest, it's probably because once they've done something unique twice, I get excited and make a custom magic item that codifies their ability to do it I really like making magic items.

I'd rather either have the GM say how they're going to run it,

This is another good point that I didn't mention in my own comment about this: you can often resolve this dissonance by explaining "you can stick a grappling hook in the dragon if your attack succeeds. Pinning it down completely won't be possible, however, if it takes off you can hang on (DC XYZ at the end of each round to maintain grip) and for as long as you do, it'll have 10' less of fly speed..." etc. etc.

The red flag for me was:
GM "Shouldn't you just attack it?"

Why is the GM telling/suggesting what you should do?

This guy clearly doesn't care about player agency or isn't experienced enough to guide players without railroading them.

As other people said, he (the GM) handled it poorly in all regards.

Excellently said. that "should" got my hackles up, too.

[kyoryu]

How I would have handled it:

Let's assume I didn't want to just say "no" on principle, which is I think a valid response.

If the grappling just didn't make sense, then I'd just say "yeah, that won't work. Grappling hooks are really designed just to grab on edges, not really sink into scales. There's really no way that's going to find a grabhold."

If I felt it was reasonable for whatever reason, I'd ask what the goal was - hold the dragon down? Fly up with the dragon when it took off? What? Then I'd give the rolls required.... "Okay, it's gonna be a hit with an improvised weapon (or whatever) to get the hook on. You're strong enough to hold your weight up but when the dragon first takes off it's gonna be a big jolt so it's a DC <x> strength check to hold on. If the dragon notices and tries to fling you off, it'll be <rules stuff> to hold on from there.... however, until that happens, you can climb up at a rate of 20' per round (or whatever)."

Now the player knows what they can expect, and decide if it's worthwhile or not (or even argue against it).

Yes, that's kinda breaking the "multiple roll" thing, but I think it's reasonable in this case, maybe? It's mostly intended as an example of how I'd communicate this better.

[Jason]

At my table it would run like this:

I wouldn't discourage the player. He can try this if he likes. I would give him some upfront information on what would be involved - it will take a full round to ready the rope, and his attack roll will be at a disadvantage if he wants to hook a wing rather than just bounce the grappling hook off of the dragon's side. Also, the hook would at best do damage as an improvised weapon: only 1d4.

If the dragon was hooked I wouldn't let it fly at all. I don't think it makes sense to be able to fly with a hook in one wing slowing it down.

If it wants to retreat, the dragon's best move at that point is to spend a claw attack to sever the rope (an easy roll considering that the rope is attached to the dragon and can't really dodge). With no tension on it the hook would then be thrown out of the wing as it starts flapping for the getaway.

A young Blue Dragon gets multi-attack, so the net effect of the grappling hook tactic has been for a player to spend a round readying it and another round doing minimal damage in exchange for the dragon having to spend one claw attack on the rope instead of any party members.

It might be a useful tactic in some situations, but it has obvious drawbacks compared to "just attack the dragon."

A canny party who wants to try it again would probably do things like get a specially made grappling hook designed to hook dragon wings to remove the disadvantage on their attack roll, and use a length of chain to prevent the rope from being so easily severed. If they go to the trouble of making those kinds of preparations then their next attempt would be correspondingly easier.

[Pex]

Sorry this happened to you. I know I would be disappointed if a DM says I can't do a Cool Idea, but I do prefer being told no than be told to roll and fail anyway regardless of the roll. It appears the DM wanted the dragon to escape, and he would not allow anything to prevent it.

Here's an opposite scenario in the hopes of cheering you up. I'm playing a barbarian (with fighter & rogue multiclass). We're fighting a Red Dragon in the air. With the help of the druid she flies me up, and I jump onto the dragon's back. Straddling it with my legs and hanging on with one hand I'm rage hacking away at it with my long sword (magical, cold damage). I had to make Athletics checks every round, but with +17 (20 ST, Expertise) and Advantage I wasn't falling. Anyway, with the dragon down to its last hit points the DM had it run away by Plane Shifting. No way I was letting my kill escape. I asked the DM since I am on the dragon's back could I go with him? Even the Plane Shift spell says willing creatures can tag along, and I was willing. The DM said sure, and off to the Plane Of Fire I went. I killed the dragon on the Plane of Fire and waited for my party to rescue me, which was a fun adventure next game session.

[Rynjin]

I can't speak for every system - but assuming you were playing 5e, this is where your DM screwed up. If they knew what you were trying to do ("I pull it back down") was impossible, then they shouldn't have called for a roll in the first place - DMG 237.

In this case the roll isn't impossible, just unlikely. It's an opposed roll so the opposing party can always roll low even if they're stronger.

Quick look says a Young Blue Dragon has a Strength of 21 (or +5). So if it rolled a 19 or 20 it would pass. Little suspicious that it did so, which is why I roll dice like this in the open, but definitely possible, and twice as likely as the OP rolling a 20.

And this is the second place they screwed up, above and beyond the screwup with the roll itself - making your choice to hang onto the rope not matter.

Agreed. They should have allowed OP to do what they intended and face the consequences (likely death by dragon) later.

[King of Nowhere]

when i read the thread title, i was about to post that sometimes the dm is really putting up some realistic obstacles and it's the players that give up too easily, misunderstanding that as the dm really railroading them out. sometimes there are those kind of miscommunications between players.
but no, yours is a clear cut case.

mind you, some things were realistic. the dragon is a lot bigger and stronger than you are. you can't keep it still with a grappling hook, no more than your cat could keep you still. at best you could impose a mild penalty on its speed and get dragged alongside it

[NichG]

Ehhhhh... I'm kind of an anti-fan of "are you sure?" In that case I'd rather either have the GM say how they're going to run it, or just say it's not viable, or just flat up say "yeah, I'm not going down that road, stick with things that have rules."

Sure, all of this is more airtight and direct - better approaches to be sure.

But I don't find the DM's approach in this example unreasonable enough to justify a rant or even really a complaint. The DM figured a hint would be sufficient, when it wasn't they explicitly said 'you shouldn't do this', which is the correct direction when a hint is missed even if the wording is bad. Given that the OP had been trying improvised stuff all night and kept having to be dissuaded, I can sympathize with the DM feeling e.g. 'will you just use the rules and stop trying stuff?'. And actually just saying that, while if I felt that way it's what I'd do, is kinda fraught in a way I can understand wanting to avoid.

From -10 to 10 on DMing competency, where 0 is completely mediocre but not particularly objectionable either, I'd put it at something like a 2. This is reasonable, average DM behavior to expect; not a horror story and not awesome enough to brag about either, but in a zone where as an unrelated person I wouldn't criticize unless the DM in particular is encountering problems they want to improve on. This is about what I'd expect from a DM running a tournament module, for example, or someone mostly in it for minis combat. Not necessarily a game I want to participate in, but not bad wrong fun.

I put the rating above 0 specifically because the DM escalated to a more explicit statement when they could have just let the player hang themselves on their own rope as other posters suggested (which I would put below zero except that the first 'are you sure' justifies it to mediocre)

[Rynjin]

I put the rating above 0 specifically because the DM escalated to a more explicit statement when they could have just let the player hang themselves on their own rope as other posters suggested (which I would put below zero except that the first 'are you sure' justifies it to mediocre)

If you tell somebody three times that something is a bad idea, and at least once explicitly, there's only so much you can do as a GM.

[NichG]

If you tell somebody three times that something is a bad idea, and at least once explicitly, there's only so much you can do as a GM.

Well for example, an 8+ would be a GM who never got into this situation because they established well in advance expectations around their game and made sure to either get players on board with their desired style or adjusted their style to their players.

But it's not like you can expect that all the time.

[Keltest]

Well for example, an 8+ would be a GM who never got into this situation because they established well in advance expectations around their game and made sure to either get players on board with their desired style or adjusted their style to their players.

But it's not like you can expect that all the time.

When the player goes "yes, I have heard your warning and am going ahead with it anyway" I don't think its really the DM's responsibility at that point. They did their duty in establishing expectations.

[NichG]

When the player goes "yes, I have heard your warning and am going ahead with it anyway" I don't think its really the DM's responsibility at that point. They did their duty in establishing expectations.

Yeah, the DM doing everything that's their responsibility adequately and nothing more is a 0 on a -10 to +10 scale. It's acceptable. The OP's DM was performing at what I'd call a +2 - no fault to them, but also nothing particularly remarkable. A DM using, say, Kyoryu's suggested strategies rather than the OP's DM would be like a +5 or +6. A DM who never finds themself in this situation because they proactively prevented it by careful selection of players, communication, adaptation of their game, etc can go higher - but thats beyond the level of context that the OP's story can really let us talk about.

Negative numbers mean the DM failed at something it was their duty to do. Positive numbers mean they did more than what's strictly required, to good effect. 0 is the computer DM who does exactly and only what they're required to do, no more, no less.

[icefractal]

Eh, no, I don't call this a reasonable way for the GM to run it.

Saying "piercing body parts with an attack isn't something the game supports; would you want enemies nailing your feet to the ground?" would be reasonable.

Saying "yes, the hook pierced its wing, but it can flick that off with a single strength check and not even be slowed down" isn't very reasonable, and rolling secretly for the result makes it worse.

It creates a strong suspicion that the GM was fudging to have the dragon escape, and that kind of suspicion is bad for the game - GMs should strive to avoid it.

[Phhase]

As someone who prides themselves on rewarding unorthodox play, tearing the grappling hook out of their wing membrane better have at least dealt a little damage.

[Quertus]

I'm really not sure what I'd do if a player wanted to grapple-hook a Dragon's wing with the explicit stated intent of keeping it from escaping. See, if they just wanted to attach a grappling hook? No problem. There are or I can invent rules for that. If they then wanted to climb that rope / have someone else climb that rope, or send lightning through that "rope" made of copper, or even hang on when the dragon flies away? No problem. There are or I can invent rules for that.

But the stated intention? On a good day, I might tell them, "OK, take your grappling hook down to the interstate, throw it at a fast-moving tractor trailer, and try to make it stop." Pause for effect. Followed by "Is that really what you're trying to do?" / "Not gonna happen." / something similar, with the option for them to explain why they think this makes more sense than what I'm picturing.

Because, at least as I understand the request, I don't understand the request. It's not an action I can picture anyone suggesting outside "superhero physics". And I don't even play with superhero physics in superhero games!*

* The current superhero game I'm running, I'm trying to use "superhero physics" for the first time. It's not easy for me. Not quite the single most challenging thing I've ever done in a RPG, but it's definitely a stretch goal, with a side of, "players, please poke me to remind me to use superhero physics whenever I fail to do so".

Yeah, the DM doing everything that's their responsibility adequately and nothing more is a 0 on a -10 to +10 scale. It's acceptable. The OP's DM was performing at what I'd call a +2 - no fault to them, but also nothing particularly remarkable. A DM using, say, Kyoryu's suggested strategies rather than the OP's DM would be like a +5 or +6. A DM who never finds themself in this situation because they proactively prevented it by careful selection of players, communication, adaptation of their game, etc can go higher - but thats beyond the level of context that the OP's story can really let us talk about.

Negative numbers mean the DM failed at something it was their duty to do. Positive numbers mean they did more than what's strictly required, to good effect. 0 is the computer DM who does exactly and only what they're required to do, no more, no less.

Not that I fully agree with you in this thread, but I'm still curious how you'd rate my above thought process, and why. (cards on the table, largely but not exclusively in the hopes of unearthing the root cause behind why I disagree with some of what you've said in this thread, and also in the hopes of improving my own skills.)

The thing with repeated rolls is that:

1. "Roll until you fail" inevitably results in failure.
2. "Roll until you succeed" inevitably results in success.

In most cases I try to handle the actual goal with one roll. In cases where that's not possible, I prefer to set up either some kind of "hit points" for the goal or to be explicit about "you need n out of m rolls to succeed at this".

I prefer... hmmm...

1) The oldschool Thief "roll until you fail". The interesting part was the tension, the unknown of where you would fail. Or of the, "you've made it this far... press your luck, or turn back now?" level of strategy decisions. All really cool stuff.

2) For the series of rolls to determine the... narration, the narrative. Like, a failed the Gather Information check means a lack of intel about the target; the player chose to fix a steak when, unbeknownst to them, the target was a vegetarian, so they auto-fail (but the player could have chosen differently, even failing the Gather Info roll, and made a different choice and thereby successfully impressed the target via their Craft:Cooking, as planned). Or the Knowledge:Nature and Spot checks determine the DC for the Climb check (because not all trees are created equal). Or the result of the Knowledge: Engineering and Architecture check determines the DC of the Disable Device check. Or more complex series of rolls, especially in complex social situations or fighting puzzle monsters, to determine what you learn from each interaction, to provide the opportunity to perform constant course correction.

2b) for the results to determine the narration (cue Lego Batman "First try!"). Sometimes, even when it doesn't matter, it matters to the character's story just how many attempts it took.

3) When it really doesn't matter to anyone, "can we eventually pick the lock?".

"yeah, I'm not going down that road, stick with things that have rules."

"Are you sure?"

See, the equivalent to that comment is what flipped the switch in my head, and turned me from "games for fun" to "learns the rules, games the system", from "writes 'Wizard' on character sheet" to "studies rules, builds infinite crit fisher".

So, for GMs who ever consider taking that stance, I can only ask, "are you sure?". Figure out what mindset you want to see in your games, and encourage that, not Not!That. If you prefer munchkins and rules lawyers over creatives, then the answer is an enthusiastic, "yes, I'm sure!".

Just wanted to pass that warning along. Several of my GMs, including the one who flipped that switch, probably would have liked hearing that warning. (And I, even knowing that warning, fail it several ways wrt what I desire vs what my style encourages. Sigh.)

[icefractal]

But the stated intention? On a good day, I might tell them, "OK, take your grappling hook down to the interstate, throw it at a fast-moving tractor trailer, and try to make it stop." Pause for effect. Followed by "Is that really what you're trying to do?" / "Not gonna happen." / something similar, with the option for them to explain why they think this makes more sense than what I'm picturing.

Because, at least as I understand the request, I don't understand the request. It's not an action I can picture anyone suggesting outside "superhero physics". And I don't even play with superhero physics in superhero games!

Most birds couldn't fly with a weight attached to one wing, even if it's a weight they could carry in their talons. You're not hooking a moving semi-truck, you're screwing with the wheels of a stationary semi-truck so it won't be able to start moving.

Heck, I doubt I could run at anywhere near full speed if I had a small lawn gnome attached to one of my legs with a fish hook - hobble, more like.

[Telok]

Also a fair answer, just communicate it clearly.

Clarification is perhaps warranted. I don't gm d&d any more, I barely play it these days. I was tired of fighting the sit-n-poke padded hp bloat combat it instills in players and neither 4th nor 5th eds really did anything to change it. There's other stuff too but the d&d combat system makes me never do stunt type stuff in d&d combat.

[NichG]

But the stated intention? On a good day, I might tell them, "OK, take your grappling hook down to the interstate, throw it at a fast-moving tractor trailer, and try to make it stop." Pause for effect. Followed by "Is that really what you're trying to do?" / "Not gonna happen." / something similar, with the option for them to explain why they think this makes more sense than what I'm picturing.

...

Not that I fully agree with you in this thread, but I'm still curious how you'd rate my above thought process, and why. (cards on the table, largely but not exclusively in the hopes of unearthing the root cause behind why I disagree with some of what you've said in this thread, and also in the hopes of improving my own skills.)

3 or 4 I guess? The reason why I'd rate it below Kyoryu's suggestions to me is, that's likely to lead to table debate (like, immediately, you got icefractal's 'but actually' as almost a knee jerk argument).

It's better than the OP's GM because it communicates an explanation. But it does so in a way that could be taken as 'the challenge here is convince me' which can bog down play or feel unfair when in the end you don't agree with whatever argument the player follows up with but don't convince them either. Whereas a direct 'my ruling is going to be that it will not work' is more brusque perhaps, but it's less ambiguous.

I'm holding constant here that the GM has 1. Already decided that this won't work (for whatever reason - realism, game balance, they feel the player has been holding up game, whatever - we don't really know from the OP) and 2. Wants the game to move on.

It's kind of fiddly because we don't know the why. Like, if this is D&D I would probably think internally something like - grappling is it's own, complex thing. Grappling with a reach weapon ... can you even do that with like a whip or something (turns out no)? To make this ruling in a way that doesn't make bad precedent -I'd have to stop game for 10 minutes and look stuff up, which sucks for everyone else at the table. Like why would you ever risk AoOs or take Improved Grapple or risk having a grapple turned on you or all of that stuff if you just have to tag someone with a grappling hook.

If that was my thought process but I said the realism argument, then that's an outright error - minus 1 or 2 or something like that.