How can I convince my GM to give more information? - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 JeffGroves Jul 21, 2013 0:49:08	I'm getting frustrated with my GM's constant refusal to indulge information. How can I convince him to be more open with it? The most recent incident is my suspicion he's consistently making Intimidation DCs harder than Diplomacy/Bluff DCs. (Since my PC's specialized in Intimidation, I have a vested interest in this.) However, I can't tell because he doesn't tell us what the DCs for the different checks are, or whether we've succeeded/failed at certain checks. (He just mentioned our success/failure tally after we made a couple rolls.) After the skill challenge, I asked him what the Intimidation DC was; he said my PC didn't have the Insight to know that. I asked him to divulge it OOCly and he still refused to say what it is. At that point I was contemplating smacking him with a rulebook. This hasn't been the only time something like this happened. In the last campaign he ran, we nearly screwed up the ending because he refused to tell us what the final ritual we were supposed to cast did. We mistakenly thought our window of opportunity had passed and almost chased the big bad without casting it; his GNPC had to pipe up and suggest we cast it to keep us from making a huge mistake. As the party's wizard, it's frustrating that I could've known we could still cast it, but nooooo, the GM had to be all mysterious and not tell us what it did, so my wizard ended up taking arcane advice from a swordsman and looking stupid in the process. How can I convince him to give us more information, ICly & OOCly, and quit being so tightlipped all the time?
#2 Shkar Jul 21, 2013 1:16:19	Talk to him out of game; trying to fix it in character will only lead to anger for everyone involved. That said, insight has nothing to do with knowing DCs, and he shouldn't be setting Intimidate higher just to spite you. You could ask him to use the table that has values for easy/medium/hard DC's for a given level. For the ritual part, you could point out that, as your wizard is one of the greatest in the world (adventurers, even at level one, are legends in the making, not random civilians with swords), he should be able to glean at least a bit of knowledge about it from what he already knows. If he has no clue what it does, it would be stupid to cast it as he has no way to know that it won't sell his soul. The DMPC should also go, as the vast majority of DM's (including yours, apparently) can not use them without abusing them via favoritism. Again, talk to your DM outside of the game. Bring up your concerns, and ask that he cut it out as it is ruining the fun of everyone who is not the DM.
#3 Centauri Jul 21, 2013 3:36:21	Classic stuff. But I'm sorry it's happening to you. You've probably seen some of us here trying to advise DMs to divulge more player information, and see the backlash that results, so I'm not surprised you're getting stonewalled. In the best possible interpretation, the DM has a story he thinks will be cool to tell, and he feels that the rules and the players won't let him tell it, so he has to work around both the rules and the players. Couple that with normal mistakes every DM makes, and you have a very hard-to-deal-with situation. There's probably not much you can do as a player. So, I recommend that you DM a session or two for your group. Run it the way you'd like your DM to run his games. Show him that it's still fun. Or maybe he'll show you that it's not, at least not with him as a player. In that event, you may need to find a new group, or at least a new DM. Good luck.
#4 JeffGroves Jul 21, 2013 3:59:57	That said, insight has nothing to do with knowing DCs, and he shouldn't be setting Intimidate higher just to spite you. You could ask him to use the table that has values for easy/medium/hard DC's for a given level. For the ritual part, you could point out that, as your wizard is one of the greatest in the world (adventurers, even at level one, are legends in the making, not random civilians with swords), he should be able to glean at least a bit of knowledge about it from what he already knows. If he has no clue what it does, it would be stupid to cast it as he has no way to know that it won't sell his soul. The DMPC should also go, as the vast majority of DM's (including yours, apparently) can not use them without abusing them via favoritism. Again, talk to your DM outside of the game. Bring up your concerns, and ask that he cut it out as it is ruining the fun of everyone who is not the DM. I don't think it's out of spite, I think it's a subconscious decision by many GMs that Intimidation should be harder than Diplomacy/Bluff because people don't like being intimidated. It gets annoying when the PC with a +7 Diplomacy consistently has an easier time convincing people to leave us alone than the PC with a double-digit Intimidate. Why do you think Insight has nothing to do knowing social challenge DCs? I expect the GM to have his own argument why it should. In his defense, we requested the DMPC ourselves to fill up a party role after a player dropped and we couldn't find a replacement. I didn't mind the DMPC, it was the occasional infallible hint he dropped through her that became frustrating. Especially when we could've come up with / figured that out ourselves instead. I know I need to talk to him out-of-game, but how do I convince him? What arguments will he probably bring up, and how can I refute them? GMs get defensive about how they run their game.
#5 JeffGroves Jul 21, 2013 4:10:22	In the best possible interpretation, the DM has a story he thinks will be cool to tell, and he feels that the rules and the players won't let him tell it, so he has to work around both the rules and the players. Couple that with normal mistakes every DM makes, and you have a very hard-to-deal-with situation. There's probably not much you can do as a player. So, I recommend that you DM a session or two for your group. Run it the way you'd like your DM to run his games. Show him that it's still fun. Actually, I already have run a mini-campaign set in his world for when he wanted to "recharge the batteries" between campaigns. Thinking back to it, I realize I actually made several of the mistakes I'm chiding him for (not mentioning Skill DCs, being vague about successes/failures in social interactions). Whoops. At the time, I probably did it because I felt getting that "gamey" about it would take people out of the RP. On the other hand, it did lead to a lot of players making repetitive social checks because they kept trying new angles (hoping each would be more successful than the last) and were unsure just how much a single skill check covered. The physical challenges were much more direct. ("You rolled a 20 Athletics? You manage to rip off the grating, no problem.") Thinking about it from a GM's view, I'm not quite sure how I could deftly handle that without breaking the flow of RP. Perhaps I should figure out how I'd do it myself before asking him to change it.
#6 crimsyn Jul 21, 2013 7:56:24	I think the only things you really can do are to try to talk to him out of game, and volunteer to DM so you can set a good example. If he were to come on here, I would advice him to: 1. Use standard DCs for all skill challenges. I like to use medium DC as the threshold between success and failure, but if the PCs don't hit a high DC, I throw a complication at them which gives the next player a -2 on their check. 2. Leave that DC the same no matter what skill the PCs use. 3. Don't bother thinking up a list of which skills the players need to roll. Present the situation to them and let them tell you what they want to do and what they're rolling to do it. 4. Don't bother hiding things like DC, monster defenses, monster health, etc. There isn't really anything to be gained by doing this. 5. Kill the DMPC *************************** I suspect that the reason DMs do things like this is because they've come up with a story in advance and they want to protect it. This manifests itself in various ways - fudging, hiding things from the players to protect the "big reveal," etc. Ideally, he should learn to give up some of that control that the DM wields, and let his players have more input into the world rather than treating them like pawns who don't need to know. Of course, that can be a bit of a journey (it was for me) and baby steps...
#7 iserith Jul 21, 2013 10:21:53	Yes, this is typical DM nonsense. You've already gotten some good advice and that involves a direct conversation with the DM. Sometimes you'll see me talking about "gaming the DM." There are certain games and DMs in which the challenge isn't the level-appropriate DCs and other mechanics that come into play to resolve situations. No, the challenge is getting your ideas past a DM who is ready to block you, raise the DC, or hang heavy disincentives around particular courses of action. If you meet the DM's bar for logic, reason, realism, "roleplaying" ability, follow his plot, or engage with some other element he values, then you auto-succeed, get a trivially low DC, or bonus XP. At a certain point, you've stopped playing the game and started playing the DM. All you need do is figure out the DM's kinks and do that - you'll "win" every time. This sounds like your situation: He doesn't want you to use Intimidate, so he has raised the DC and then justified it with some kind of in-game "logic." If you choose Diplomacy rather than Intimidate, you'll have met his bar for whatever and get a lower DC. Unfortunately, a lot of DMs think this is how you should play the game and many of them have built up all sorts of justifications over the years, internally and otherwise. They sit in judgment of your ideas, adjudicate according to their biases rather than be a neutral arbiter and let the dice decide. I suspect a lot of this comes from the 3.X tradition, but it's totally out of place in 4e. (DMs: You can't run 4e like 3.X! It's a different game!) My guess is if you call it out, the DM will either deny he's doing it or say it's the way it's supposed to be done. When we mention such things on the forums, it is met with all sorts of objection and consternation. I expect nothing different from your DM and would be pleasantly surprised otherwise. Some people need to maintain that kind of control. That's why they gravitate to the DM position. Contrast with a game like ours. We have fantastic players and lots of of them. We do cool things, describe it awesomely, take risks, and engage in-character a lot. No matter how dramatically we describe an action or how perfect it fits a given situation, we know the DC at 6th-level (for example) to do everything we wanted to do is 23 or 15-22 with a complication, setback, worse outcome, or ugly choice. Anything less than 15 is a failure. This is made clear at the start of each session so that we don't need to discuss it during play. We will get no modified DCs or "situational bonuses" from the DM in any way. We know what to expect and it informs our decision-making. Sometimes great plans fail and stupid ones succeed, just like in life and art. Since failure is always interesting, we try to succeed (it is a game after all), but failure is just another interesting turn in the fiction. At any rate, here are some talking points to consider: Players use what they know of the rules in their decision-making. If the DM is not adjudicating the rules consistently, then it makes it harder for players to make decisions. Players need context to make decisions. If you withhold information, it makes it harder to act which can slow the game down. If you give the players information, they can act more readily which keeps the game moving forward. Having information doesn't mean you automatically succeed on the challenge(s) that follow. There are still dice involved and level-appropriate DCs. Skill checks are made in non-mundane, dramatic situations in which there is a chance of success and failure and both of those outcomes can be interesting. If those conditions aren't met, then it's not a roll - the character simply succeeds. Insight is useful for learning NPC motivations and goals. If a PC can discern this, consider that PCs could use that knowledge to play to the NPC's needs in the fiction and take a +2 bonus to the social skill check in the mechanics as an "asset." (Notice I said "take" not "lobby DM for" or "be granted.") This approach might be more palatable to your DM who sounds like he wants you to tease information out of him. Example: Cleric makes Insight check to determine the motivations and goals of the orc chieftain and succeeds. DM tells him an honest answer of "to claim a new homeland in the Red Canyon." He whispers what he thinks to the paladin. Paladin Intimidates the chieftain by threatening his goal: "Agree to our terms or we'll collapse the Pass of Urr - you'll never take the Red Canyon then. I'm taking +2 on this for using knowledge of his goal as an asset." Finally, a snippet from the beta of Dungeon World: Show Always be honest. If the rules tell you to give out information... do it. Don't lie or give half truths; be open and honest—generous, even. The player characters have risked something to get that information just by rolling so make it worth their while. If you don't know the answer make one up or turn the question back to the players. Once you tell the players it's set in stone, no going back on it. This applies in general to the players' actions, too. If they have worked to achieve something, you should give it to them fully. You're not here to fight back against the players; you're not opposed to them at all. You are playing the game with them.
#8 Krusk Jul 21, 2013 11:04:59	I suspect a lot of this comes from the 3.X tradition, but it's totally out of place in 4e. This DM sounds bad, but that doesn't have anything to do with editions. You realize 3.X has a list of DCs presented for a given task, and when them DM arbitrarily and secretly increases it for no reason you can show him where he is wrong. 4e has a scaling list of challenges, where the DC is based on your PCs level and how "Hard" the challenge is supposed to be. Meaning you can't point to a chart and show the DM he is wrong. To break down a simple door in 3.5, the DC is 13. It also has a hardness of 5 and 10HP if something happens to damage in. In 4e I could give you no good guess at what any of that would be. The DC to break it down could literally change from 5 to 33 depending on my level and how hard a challenge the DM wants it to be. --- Anyway, what you need to do is ask the DM if you can "Estimate your odds of success on this task". Your PC has ranks in the skill, and presumably can judge this a little bit. If needed, you can explain probability to your DM. "DC is 30 I have +10, I'd guess its near 50/50". "DC is 40 I have +10, I don't think I have a chance at all". "DC is 15 I have +10, I'd be suprised if I fail". Its an incharacter justification as to why your PC should know the DCs and that helps a lot of DMs get over the "The players can never know the DCs BS" that is pretty common.
#9 iserith Jul 21, 2013 11:18:26	This DM sounds bad, but that doesn't have anything to do with editions. You realize 3.X has a list of DCs presented for a given task, and when them DM arbitrarily and secretly increases it for no reason you can show him where he is wrong. 4e has a scaling list of challenges, where the DC is based on your PCs level and how "Hard" the challenge is supposed to be. Meaning you can't point to a chart and show the DM he is wrong. To break down a simple door in 3.5, the DC is 13. It also has a hardness of 5 and 10HP if something happens to damage in. In 4e I could give you no good guess at what any of that would be. The DC to break it down could literally change from 5 to 33 depending on my level and how hard a challenge the DM wants it to be. In 4e, there are DCs given for all sorts of doors and other objects that are independent of the DC-by-level chart. There is also a low, medium, and high DC provided by level for other activities that aren't specifically codified. It's plain to see, plus precedent for what I prescribed above. I can't speak to 3.X on the matter of DCs or the like. I'm referring to a particular approach I see many 3.X DMs using that I think comes about naturally from playing that version.
#10 JeffGroves Jul 21, 2013 13:34:34	Sometimes you'll see me talking about "gaming the DM." There are certain games and DMs in which the challenge isn't the level-appropriate DCs and other mechanics that come into play to resolve situations. No, the challenge is getting your ideas past a DM who is ready to block you, raise the DC, or hang heavy disincentives around particular courses of action. If you meet the DM's bar for logic, reason, realism, "roleplaying" ability, follow his plot, or engage with some other element he values, then you auto-succeed, get a trivially low DC, or bonus XP. At a certain point, you've stopped playing the game and started playing the DM. All you need do is figure out the DM's kinks and do that - you'll "win" every time. This sounds like your situation: He doesn't want you to use Intimidate, so he has raised the DC and then justified it with some kind of in-game "logic." If you choose Diplomacy rather than Intimidate, you'll have met his bar for whatever and get a lower DC. I generally approve of raising/lowering DCs for roleplaying or figuring out a good way to tackle a problem; it's my solution to making abstract skill challenges more engaging than "figure out my best skill, hope I roll well at it". However, a lack of information on how to do so, or what exactly constitutes a bad idea in the situation, is aggravating. It's the difference between having a duel in a lit room and having one in a pitch black room: one involves masterful positioning, thrusts, and counters, the other involves a lot of flailing and hoping something connects.
#11 iserith Jul 21, 2013 13:48:37	I generally approve of raising/lowering DCs for roleplaying or figuring out a good way to tackle a problem; it's my solution to making abstract skill challenges more engaging than "figure out my best skill, hope I roll well at it". There are better ways, in my view, of addressing your concern about skill challenges than forcing the players to play to the DMs biases to get bonuses. Much of it has to do with how the DM presents it. However, a lack of information on how to do so, or what exactly constitutes a bad idea in the situation, is aggravating. It's the difference between having a duel in a lit room and having one in a pitch black room: one involves masterful positioning, thrusts, and counters, the other involves a lot of flailing and hoping something connects. I give information freely without skill checks. Information is "free" - actions usually have checks. Someone can have a fantastic solution to a problem and still not be able to implement it because of bad checks. Thus, having information does not necessarily make a given challenge any easier.
#12 Centauri Jul 21, 2013 14:17:46	Thinking about it from a GM's view, I'm not quite sure how I could deftly handle that without breaking the flow of RP. Perhaps I should figure out how I'd do it myself before asking him to change it. By beginning and ending with the fiction. Describe the grate, mention the DC for dealing with it, and talk a bit more about the grate. Describe the action of making the check, mention success or failure, and follow on with the results. Just try it and worry less about the roleplaying, because nothing takes people out of roleplaying like frustration, which you are obviously experiencing.
#13 Neutronium_Dragon Jul 31, 2013 20:06:06	Since Intimidate seems to be a specific sticking point: the DMG1 stupidly presented that skill as one that generates auto-fails in pretty much every skill challenge situation, and this presentation has colored the use of that skill (and skill challenges) ever since. It doesn't help matters that every 'example' consisted of crude physical threats (and used that rationale for the auto-fail) when Intimidate covers a wide range of approaches. Regardless, that element of the DMG1's "examples" should be ignored.
#14 Centauri Aug 01, 2013 1:49:16	Since Intimidate seems to be a specific sticking point: the DMG1 stupidly presented that skill as one that generates auto-fails in pretty much every skill challenge situation, and this presentation has colored the use of that skill (and skill challenges) ever since. It doesn't help matters that every 'example' consisted of crude physical threats (and used that rationale for the auto-fail) when Intimidate covers a wide range of approaches. Regardless, that element of the DMG1's "examples" should be ignored. Hear, hear. There's a major bias against Intimidate, right up there with intelligent warriors (though the Warlord helps with that a bit).
#15 thadian Aug 04, 2013 20:31:19	There is also a chance the DM doesn't know your characters numbers, or wants "fudge room". There is also a chance the DM didn't have a DC in mind, just wanting to handweave success/failure based on your numbers. Sometimes, this means the DM cares about your total being over/under 30 and at others he wants you to roll above 13 (because you succeed everything on 6-8). So, how do I do things? I will NEVER tell players the DC up front. I will just narrate the happenings of the scene. If a player asks a DC, I always tell them outright. (Assuming a character with no bonuses at level 1). "Well, 12 is enough to jump this pit. 15 would allow you a partial action after landing/in air, and 18 is enough to give your allies a +2 bonus on their jump checks AND the partial action." I like to have success/failure work on a tiered system. If the player beats my DC by... then... Nat 20: Success, in the best possible way for the context of the situation. AWE-SOME-NESS. +8: Best success you can get other than a natural 20, I alter the scene in response such that rewards the team. +4 Great success, I alter the scene to reward the player. I also try to make something cool happen with the action. +2 The action succeeds and I try to make something cool happen with the action. +0 The DC has been passed. Failure works on the same tiers. -4 In addition to failure, a small price to pay. Jumping the pit? Safe landing + sprained ankle. -6 In addition to failure, a medium price to pay. Jumping the pit? Safe landing + broken leg. Nat 1: The worst possible result from the action in the context of the situation. Now, about getting your DM to budge. Without being jerky about it, ask if there is a valid reason why you can't know the DC's. Patronize a little, and offer justification for confession. "I get it; you don't know the DC's and you want me to roll decently regardless my total. Right?" or "So, what kind of an idiot oaf am I, with 14 ranks in Climbing, that I can't estimate how hard this climb is. Can you give me a reason why I can't estimate this?" or "Oh, you want me to fail Intimidate because you WANT me to use diplomacy. Fine, I will use Diplomacy, can I have a DC?" Then, after the game, talk to your DM. Just say "There is no shame in not planning every inch. I read online that most DM's instead of planning DC's make them up on the spot. Probably makes things easier, right?" (baiting the yes) and "Have you read those blogs mentioning that secret DC's add more mystery and challenge to the game? You know, if I know its easier to climb the wall than jump the pit, why jump the pit, right? So keeping the DC's unknown makes both choices equally valid, right?" (baiting the yes). The goal is to get your DM to talk about their logic of WHY the DC's are secret. You want to get into the reasoning. You can't force your DM to see the virtues of sharing information but you can make them justify not sharing it. You can let them know it isn't fun. How fun would it be for the DM if you "Attacked the monster" then rolled the dice; then said "What is it's AC? Do I hit on a 14? Okay, I had a 17, I just wanted to check." or if you say "Attacking and I roll a... (rolls dice, cups the hand over the dice to hide the result). What is the DC? You reveal the DC and I will reveal my roll. Deal?" The point is to show the DM how un-fun it is. You can make him feel like he is being petty and shame/guilt him for it. You can also tell your other friends "I want to run a game just us. If you let him be the DM, why not try me?" Then, after a game of revealing DC's and giving players what they want, you can encourage them to invite the former DM to join your game if he agrees to your rules; beware he might try to "pee in the pool" to punish you for doing it better. Lastly, is it just you who thinks this? How do other players at your table feel?
#16 thadian Aug 04, 2013 22:30:53	I give information freely without skill checks. Information is "free" - actions usually have checks. Someone can have a fantastic solution to a problem and still not be able to implement it because of bad checks. Thus, having information does not necessarily make a given challenge any easier. However not having information can make a challenge impossible. Now, if only we could clone some people like Me, You, Centuari, YagamiFire... and rent these clones out to people for game night...

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

JeffGroves

Jul 21, 2013 0:49:08

I'm getting frustrated with my GM's constant refusal to indulge information. How can I convince him to be more open with it?

The most recent incident is my suspicion he's consistently making Intimidation DCs harder than Diplomacy/Bluff DCs. (Since my PC's specialized in Intimidation, I have a vested interest in this.) However, I can't tell because he doesn't tell us what the DCs for the different checks are, or whether we've succeeded/failed at certain checks. (He just mentioned our success/failure tally after we made a couple rolls.) After the skill challenge, I asked him what the Intimidation DC was; he said my PC didn't have the Insight to know that. I asked him to divulge it OOCly and he still refused to say what it is. At that point I was contemplating smacking him with a rulebook.

This hasn't been the only time something like this happened. In the last campaign he ran, we nearly screwed up the ending because he refused to tell us what the final ritual we were supposed to cast did. We mistakenly thought our window of opportunity had passed and almost chased the big bad without casting it; his GNPC had to pipe up and suggest we cast it to keep us from making a huge mistake. As the party's wizard, it's frustrating that I could've known we could still cast it, but nooooo, the GM had to be all mysterious and not tell us what it did, so my wizard ended up taking arcane advice from a swordsman and looking stupid in the process.

How can I convince him to give us more information, ICly & OOCly, and quit being so tightlipped all the time?

Shkar

Jul 21, 2013 1:16:19

Talk to him out of game; trying to fix it in character will only lead to anger for everyone involved.

That said, insight has nothing to do with knowing DCs, and he shouldn't be setting Intimidate higher just to spite you. You could ask him to use the table that has values for easy/medium/hard DC's for a given level. For the ritual part, you could point out that, as your wizard is one of the greatest in the world (adventurers, even at level one, are legends in the making, not random civilians with swords), he should be able to glean at least a bit of knowledge about it from what he already knows. If he has no clue what it does, it would be stupid to cast it as he has no way to know that it won't sell his soul. The DMPC should also go, as the vast majority of DM's (including yours, apparently) can not use them without abusing them via favoritism.

Again, talk to your DM outside of the game. Bring up your concerns, and ask that he cut it out as it is ruining the fun of everyone who is not the DM.

Centauri

Jul 21, 2013 3:36:21

Classic stuff. But I'm sorry it's happening to you.

You've probably seen some of us here trying to advise DMs to divulge more player information, and see the backlash that results, so I'm not surprised you're getting stonewalled.

In the best possible interpretation, the DM has a story he thinks will be cool to tell, and he feels that the rules and the players won't let him tell it, so he has to work around both the rules and the players. Couple that with normal mistakes every DM makes, and you have a very hard-to-deal-with situation. There's probably not much you can do as a player.

So, I recommend that you DM a session or two for your group. Run it the way you'd like your DM to run his games. Show him that it's still fun. Or maybe he'll show you that it's not, at least not with him as a player. In that event, you may need to find a new group, or at least a new DM.

Good luck.

JeffGroves

Jul 21, 2013 3:59:57

That said, insight has nothing to do with knowing DCs, and he shouldn't be setting Intimidate higher just to spite you. You could ask him to use the table that has values for easy/medium/hard DC's for a given level. For the ritual part, you could point out that, as your wizard is one of the greatest in the world (adventurers, even at level one, are legends in the making, not random civilians with swords), he should be able to glean at least a bit of knowledge about it from what he already knows. If he has no clue what it does, it would be stupid to cast it as he has no way to know that it won't sell his soul. The DMPC should also go, as the vast majority of DM's (including yours, apparently) can not use them without abusing them via favoritism.

Again, talk to your DM outside of the game. Bring up your concerns, and ask that he cut it out as it is ruining the fun of everyone who is not the DM.

I don't think it's out of spite, I think it's a subconscious decision by many GMs that Intimidation should be harder than Diplomacy/Bluff because people don't like being intimidated. It gets annoying when the PC with a +7 Diplomacy consistently has an easier time convincing people to leave us alone than the PC with a double-digit Intimidate.

Why do you think Insight has nothing to do knowing social challenge DCs? I expect the GM to have his own argument why it should.

In his defense, we requested the DMPC ourselves to fill up a party role after a player dropped and we couldn't find a replacement. I didn't mind the DMPC, it was the occasional infallible hint he dropped through her that became frustrating. Especially when we could've come up with / figured that out ourselves instead.

I know I need to talk to him out-of-game, but how do I convince him? What arguments will he probably bring up, and how can I refute them? GMs get defensive about how they run their game.

JeffGroves

Jul 21, 2013 4:10:22

In the best possible interpretation, the DM has a story he thinks will be cool to tell, and he feels that the rules and the players won't let him tell it, so he has to work around both the rules and the players. Couple that with normal mistakes every DM makes, and you have a very hard-to-deal-with situation. There's probably not much you can do as a player.

So, I recommend that you DM a session or two for your group. Run it the way you'd like your DM to run his games. Show him that it's still fun.

Actually, I already have run a mini-campaign set in his world for when he wanted to "recharge the batteries" between campaigns. Thinking back to it, I realize I actually made several of the mistakes I'm chiding him for (not mentioning Skill DCs, being vague about successes/failures in social interactions). Whoops.

At the time, I probably did it because I felt getting that "gamey" about it would take people out of the RP. On the other hand, it did lead to a lot of players making repetitive social checks because they kept trying new angles (hoping each would be more successful than the last) and were unsure just how much a single skill check covered. The physical challenges were much more direct. ("You rolled a 20 Athletics? You manage to rip off the grating, no problem.")

Thinking about it from a GM's view, I'm not quite sure how I could deftly handle that without breaking the flow of RP. Perhaps I should figure out how I'd do it myself before asking him to change it.

crimsyn

Jul 21, 2013 7:56:24

I think the only things you really can do are to try to talk to him out of game, and volunteer to DM so you can set a good example.

If he were to come on here, I would advice him to:

1. Use standard DCs for all skill challenges. I like to use medium DC as the threshold between success and failure, but if the PCs don't hit a high DC, I throw a complication at them which gives the next player a -2 on their check.

2. Leave that DC the same no matter what skill the PCs use.

3. Don't bother thinking up a list of which skills the players need to roll. Present the situation to them and let them tell you what they want to do and what they're rolling to do it.

4. Don't bother hiding things like DC, monster defenses, monster health, etc. There isn't really anything to be gained by doing this.

5. Kill the DMPC

***************************
I suspect that the reason DMs do things like this is because they've come up with a story in advance and they want to protect it. This manifests itself in various ways - fudging, hiding things from the players to protect the "big reveal," etc. Ideally, he should learn to give up some of that control that the DM wields, and let his players have more input into the world rather than treating them like pawns who don't need to know. Of course, that can be a bit of a journey (it was for me) and baby steps...

iserith

Jul 21, 2013 10:21:53

Yes, this is typical DM nonsense. You've already gotten some good advice and that involves a direct conversation with the DM.

Sometimes you'll see me talking about "gaming the DM." There are certain games and DMs in which the challenge isn't the level-appropriate DCs and other mechanics that come into play to resolve situations. No, the challenge is getting your ideas past a DM who is ready to block you, raise the DC, or hang heavy disincentives around particular courses of action. If you meet the DM's bar for logic, reason, realism, "roleplaying" ability, follow his plot, or engage with some other element he values, then you auto-succeed, get a trivially low DC, or bonus XP. At a certain point, you've stopped playing the game and started playing the DM. All you need do is figure out the DM's kinks and do that - you'll "win" every time. This sounds like your situation: He doesn't want you to use Intimidate, so he has raised the DC and then justified it with some kind of in-game "logic." If you choose Diplomacy rather than Intimidate, you'll have met his bar for whatever and get a lower DC.

Unfortunately, a lot of DMs think this is how you should play the game and many of them have built up all sorts of justifications over the years, internally and otherwise. They sit in judgment of your ideas, adjudicate according to their biases rather than be a neutral arbiter and let the dice decide. I suspect a lot of this comes from the 3.X tradition, but it's totally out of place in 4e. (DMs: You can't run 4e like 3.X! It's a different game!) My guess is if you call it out, the DM will either deny he's doing it or say it's the way it's supposed to be done. When we mention such things on the forums, it is met with all sorts of objection and consternation. I expect nothing different from your DM and would be pleasantly surprised otherwise. Some people need to maintain that kind of control. That's why they gravitate to the DM position.

Contrast with a game like ours. We have fantastic players and lots of of them. We do cool things, describe it awesomely, take risks, and engage in-character a lot. No matter how dramatically we describe an action or how perfect it fits a given situation, we know the DC at 6th-level (for example) to do everything we wanted to do is 23 or 15-22 with a complication, setback, worse outcome, or ugly choice. Anything less than 15 is a failure. This is made clear at the start of each session so that we don't need to discuss it during play. We will get no modified DCs or "situational bonuses" from the DM in any way. We know what to expect and it informs our decision-making. Sometimes great plans fail and stupid ones succeed, just like in life and art. Since failure is always interesting, we try to succeed (it is a game after all), but failure is just another interesting turn in the fiction.

At any rate, here are some talking points to consider:

Players use what they know of the rules in their decision-making. If the DM is not adjudicating the rules consistently, then it makes it harder for players to make decisions.

Players need context to make decisions. If you withhold information, it makes it harder to act which can slow the game down. If you give the players information, they can act more readily which keeps the game moving forward. Having information doesn't mean you automatically succeed on the challenge(s) that follow. There are still dice involved and level-appropriate DCs.

Skill checks are made in non-mundane, dramatic situations in which there is a chance of success and failure and both of those outcomes can be interesting. If those conditions aren't met, then it's not a roll - the character simply succeeds.

Insight is useful for learning NPC motivations and goals. If a PC can discern this, consider that PCs could use that knowledge to play to the NPC's needs in the fiction and take a +2 bonus to the social skill check in the mechanics as an "asset." (Notice I said "take" not "lobby DM for" or "be granted.") This approach might be more palatable to your DM who sounds like he wants you to tease information out of him. Example: Cleric makes Insight check to determine the motivations and goals of the orc chieftain and succeeds. DM tells him an honest answer of "to claim a new homeland in the Red Canyon." He whispers what he thinks to the paladin. Paladin Intimidates the chieftain by threatening his goal: "Agree to our terms or we'll collapse the Pass of Urr - you'll never take the Red Canyon then. I'm taking +2 on this for using knowledge of his goal as an asset."

Finally, a snippet from the beta of Dungeon World:

Show

Always be honest. If the rules tell you to give out information... do it. Don't lie or give half truths; be open and honest—generous, even. The player characters have risked something to get that information just by rolling so make it worth their while. If you don't know the answer make one up or turn the question back to the players. Once you tell the players it's set in stone, no going back on it.

This applies in general to the players' actions, too. If they have worked to achieve something, you should give it to them fully. You're not here to fight back against the players; you're not opposed to them at all. You are playing the game with them.

Krusk

Jul 21, 2013 11:04:59

I suspect a lot of this comes from the 3.X tradition, but it's totally out of place in 4e.

This DM sounds bad, but that doesn't have anything to do with editions. You realize 3.X has a list of DCs presented for a given task, and when them DM arbitrarily and secretly increases it for no reason you can show him where he is wrong. 4e has a scaling list of challenges, where the DC is based on your PCs level and how "Hard" the challenge is supposed to be. Meaning you can't point to a chart and show the DM he is wrong. To break down a simple door in 3.5, the DC is 13. It also has a hardness of 5 and 10HP if something happens to damage in. In 4e I could give you no good guess at what any of that would be. The DC to break it down could literally change from 5 to 33 depending on my level and how hard a challenge the DM wants it to be.

---

Anyway, what you need to do is ask the DM if you can "Estimate your odds of success on this task". Your PC has ranks in the skill, and presumably can judge this a little bit. If needed, you can explain probability to your DM. "DC is 30 I have +10, I'd guess its near 50/50". "DC is 40 I have +10, I don't think I have a chance at all". "DC is 15 I have +10, I'd be suprised if I fail".

Its an incharacter justification as to why your PC should know the DCs and that helps a lot of DMs get over the "The players can never know the DCs BS" that is pretty common.

iserith

Jul 21, 2013 11:18:26

This DM sounds bad, but that doesn't have anything to do with editions. You realize 3.X has a list of DCs presented for a given task, and when them DM arbitrarily and secretly increases it for no reason you can show him where he is wrong. 4e has a scaling list of challenges, where the DC is based on your PCs level and how "Hard" the challenge is supposed to be. Meaning you can't point to a chart and show the DM he is wrong. To break down a simple door in 3.5, the DC is 13. It also has a hardness of 5 and 10HP if something happens to damage in. In 4e I could give you no good guess at what any of that would be. The DC to break it down could literally change from 5 to 33 depending on my level and how hard a challenge the DM wants it to be.

In 4e, there are DCs given for all sorts of doors and other objects that are independent of the DC-by-level chart. There is also a low, medium, and high DC provided by level for other activities that aren't specifically codified. It's plain to see, plus precedent for what I prescribed above. I can't speak to 3.X on the matter of DCs or the like. I'm referring to a particular approach I see many 3.X DMs using that I think comes about naturally from playing that version.

#10

JeffGroves

Jul 21, 2013 13:34:34

Sometimes you'll see me talking about "gaming the DM." There are certain games and DMs in which the challenge isn't the level-appropriate DCs and other mechanics that come into play to resolve situations. No, the challenge is getting your ideas past a DM who is ready to block you, raise the DC, or hang heavy disincentives around particular courses of action. If you meet the DM's bar for logic, reason, realism, "roleplaying" ability, follow his plot, or engage with some other element he values, then you auto-succeed, get a trivially low DC, or bonus XP. At a certain point, you've stopped playing the game and started playing the DM. All you need do is figure out the DM's kinks and do that - you'll "win" every time. This sounds like your situation: He doesn't want you to use Intimidate, so he has raised the DC and then justified it with some kind of in-game "logic." If you choose Diplomacy rather than Intimidate, you'll have met his bar for whatever and get a lower DC.

I generally approve of raising/lowering DCs for roleplaying or figuring out a good way to tackle a problem; it's my solution to making abstract skill challenges more engaging than "figure out my best skill, hope I roll well at it". However, a lack of information on how to do so, or what exactly constitutes a bad idea in the situation, is aggravating. It's the difference between having a duel in a lit room and having one in a pitch black room: one involves masterful positioning, thrusts, and counters, the other involves a lot of flailing and hoping something connects.

#11

iserith

Jul 21, 2013 13:48:37

I generally approve of raising/lowering DCs for roleplaying or figuring out a good way to tackle a problem; it's my solution to making abstract skill challenges more engaging than "figure out my best skill, hope I roll well at it".

There are better ways, in my view, of addressing your concern about skill challenges than forcing the players to play to the DMs biases to get bonuses. Much of it has to do with how the DM presents it.

However, a lack of information on how to do so, or what exactly constitutes a bad idea in the situation, is aggravating. It's the difference between having a duel in a lit room and having one in a pitch black room: one involves masterful positioning, thrusts, and counters, the other involves a lot of flailing and hoping something connects.

I give information freely without skill checks. Information is "free" - actions usually have checks. Someone can have a fantastic solution to a problem and still not be able to implement it because of bad checks. Thus, having information does not necessarily make a given challenge any easier.

#12

Centauri

Jul 21, 2013 14:17:46

Thinking about it from a GM's view, I'm not quite sure how I could deftly handle that without breaking the flow of RP. Perhaps I should figure out how I'd do it myself before asking him to change it.

By beginning and ending with the fiction. Describe the grate, mention the DC for dealing with it, and talk a bit more about the grate. Describe the action of making the check, mention success or failure, and follow on with the results.

Just try it and worry less about the roleplaying, because nothing takes people out of roleplaying like frustration, which you are obviously experiencing.

#13

Neutronium_Dragon

Jul 31, 2013 20:06:06

Since Intimidate seems to be a specific sticking point: the DMG1 stupidly presented that skill as one that generates auto-fails in pretty much every skill challenge situation, and this presentation has colored the use of that skill (and skill challenges) ever since. It doesn't help matters that every 'example' consisted of crude physical threats (and used that rationale for the auto-fail) when Intimidate covers a wide range of approaches.

Regardless, that element of the DMG1's "examples" should be ignored.

#14

Centauri

Aug 01, 2013 1:49:16

Since Intimidate seems to be a specific sticking point: the DMG1 stupidly presented that skill as one that generates auto-fails in pretty much every skill challenge situation, and this presentation has colored the use of that skill (and skill challenges) ever since. It doesn't help matters that every 'example' consisted of crude physical threats (and used that rationale for the auto-fail) when Intimidate covers a wide range of approaches.

Regardless, that element of the DMG1's "examples" should be ignored.

Hear, hear. There's a major bias against Intimidate, right up there with intelligent warriors (though the Warlord helps with that a bit).

#15

thadian

Aug 04, 2013 20:31:19

There is also a chance the DM doesn't know your characters numbers, or wants "fudge room". There is also a chance the DM didn't have a DC in mind, just wanting to handweave success/failure based on your numbers. Sometimes, this means the DM cares about your total being over/under 30 and at others he wants you to roll above 13 (because you succeed everything on 6-8).

So, how do I do things? I will NEVER tell players the DC up front. I will just narrate the happenings of the scene. If a player asks a DC, I always tell them outright. (Assuming a character with no bonuses at level 1). "Well, 12 is enough to jump this pit. 15 would allow you a partial action after landing/in air, and 18 is enough to give your allies a +2 bonus on their jump checks AND the partial action."

I like to have success/failure work on a tiered system. If the player beats my DC by... then...

Nat 20: Success, in the best possible way for the context of the situation. AWE-SOME-NESS.

+8: Best success you can get other than a natural 20, I alter the scene in response such that rewards the team.

+4 Great success, I alter the scene to reward the player. I also try to make something cool happen with the action.

+2 The action succeeds and I try to make something cool happen with the action.

+0 The DC has been passed.

Failure works on the same tiers.

-4 In addition to failure, a small price to pay. Jumping the pit? Safe landing + sprained ankle.

-6 In addition to failure, a medium price to pay. Jumping the pit? Safe landing + broken leg.

Nat 1: The worst possible result from the action in the context of the situation.

Now, about getting your DM to budge. Without being jerky about it, ask if there is a valid reason why you can't know the DC's. Patronize a little, and offer justification for confession. "I get it; you don't know the DC's and you want me to roll decently regardless my total. Right?" or "So, what kind of an idiot oaf am I, with 14 ranks in Climbing, that I can't estimate how hard this climb is. Can you give me a reason why I can't estimate this?" or "Oh, you want me to fail Intimidate because you WANT me to use diplomacy. Fine, I will use Diplomacy, can I have a DC?"

Then, after the game, talk to your DM. Just say "There is no shame in not planning every inch. I read online that most DM's instead of planning DC's make them up on the spot. Probably makes things easier, right?" (baiting the yes) and "Have you read those blogs mentioning that secret DC's add more mystery and challenge to the game? You know, if I know its easier to climb the wall than jump the pit, why jump the pit, right? So keeping the DC's unknown makes both choices equally valid, right?" (baiting the yes).

The goal is to get your DM to talk about their logic of WHY the DC's are secret. You want to get into the reasoning. You can't force your DM to see the virtues of sharing information but you can make them justify not sharing it. You can let them know it isn't fun.

How fun would it be for the DM if you "Attacked the monster" then rolled the dice; then said "What is it's AC? Do I hit on a 14? Okay, I had a 17, I just wanted to check." or if you say "Attacking and I roll a... (rolls dice, cups the hand over the dice to hide the result). What is the DC? You reveal the DC and I will reveal my roll. Deal?" The point is to show the DM how un-fun it is. You can make him feel like he is being petty and shame/guilt him for it.

You can also tell your other friends "I want to run a game just us. If you let him be the DM, why not try me?" Then, after a game of revealing DC's and giving players what they want, you can encourage them to invite the former DM to join your game if he agrees to your rules; beware he might try to "pee in the pool" to punish you for doing it better.

Lastly, is it just you who thinks this? How do other players at your table feel?

#16

thadian

Aug 04, 2013 22:30:53

I give information freely without skill checks. Information is "free" - actions usually have checks. Someone can have a fantastic solution to a problem and still not be able to implement it because of bad checks. Thus, having information does not necessarily make a given challenge any easier.

However not having information can make a challenge impossible.

Now, if only we could clone some people like Me, You, Centuari, YagamiFire... and rent these clones out to people for game night...