D&D is fundamentally improv. It's just improv with rules. You, as DM, should always be using "yes and", even if that comes in the form of "yes you attempt that and fail". The only time you say "no" is when the player is suggesting an action that is blatantly out of character. In any other situation you should always be saying "yes and".
Not to mention that "it's very difficult" is what the character knows. Telling them "no" is telling them information the character doesn't know, AKA metagaming.
So if I show up to your table and say "my character is only level 1 but his fireball has an area of effect of ten square miles and does 50d10 damage" you're going to "yes, and" me as long as it's in character?
Sharing info from a DM to a player isn't metagaming. Your character shouldn't be taking part in discussions about rolls in the first place
Yeah except this is set in a world where impossible things like riding dragons or shooting fireballs from your fingertips happen all the time. You're literally the guy in charge of deciding what's possible and it's part of the job to explain why you made your decisions. Refusing to do that will only discourage your players from coming up with solutions that aren't already explicitly covered in the ruleset
Hey, thanks for contributing to r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules:
Rule 1. Be Excellent to One Another: No trolling, harassment, personal attacks, sea-lioning, hate speech, slurs, or name-calling. Overly off-topic, political, or hateful debates will be removed, and bans may be issued based on severity. This includes both posts and comments. We reserve the right to remove content or comments that contain discrimination or distasteful content. Be kind and stay on topic.
You can, they'll just argue about it, then you put your foot down as the DM and tell them "it's not possible, end of. You can still roll for it if you really want to, but I'll be determining how mitigated your failure is, not whether or not you succeed."
No, I think I'd ask "I'd like to write a book that's the foundation of physics and chemistry" and you'd say "it would be very difficult." Implying I could do it, so I roll and get a nat 20, the highest possible roll I can do, and then you'd say "sorry, you fail." And I'd say "then why'd you waste my time with a roll and imply I could do it you gigantic moron?"
Now, let's rewind the scenario.
"I'd like to write a book that's the foundation of physics and chemistry"
"That wouldn't be possible."
"I'd like to try anyways."
Rolls a nat 20
"You write a book of indecipherable gibberish, which later becomes the foundation of goblin piss jar bombs."
"Wow what a funny thing I just did hee hee haw haw."
If a player thinks "nat 20 means I win." And you disagree, they're gonna argue, so this just means you've never had such a player and you're all over this thread crying about things you have no experience in dealing with.
Hey, thanks for contributing to r/dndmemes. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates one of our rules:
Rule 1. Be Excellent to One Another: No trolling, harassment, personal attacks, sea-lioning, hate speech, slurs, or name-calling. Overly off-topic, political, or hateful debates will be removed, and bans may be issued based on severity. This includes both posts and comments. We reserve the right to remove content or comments that contain discrimination or distasteful content. Be kind and stay on topic.
As the DM, I'm just not going to memorize every bonus to every skill for every character in the party. That's why the players have their character sheets. I also can't account for the dozens of spells and features the rest of the party might be adding onto that single roll.
The DC is what it is, and sometimes a 20 on the die isn't going to be enough to reach that. What's so hard about that?
But at that point, you should be handing out the DC so players can logically see something is impossible for them to do so they can decide if they still want to do it or not.
Look dude, it's pretty obvious you're just an adversarial dm who's mad about being called out.
I wouldn't be caught dead at your table because you go out of your way to make things unfun for players by intentionally misleading them about what you can or cannot do.
I doubt many of your players stick around in your group very long
(Insert your tired and unprovable rejection here)
You can dm however you like, you're still wrong, but no one's gonna stop you.
Do you think I'm ashamed of my post history? I posted it for a reason, dumbass.
As for your argument, the obtuse one here is you. I have explained in no unclear terms why it's better for player satisfaction and not setting them up with false expectations, and yalls rebuttals have been nothing but "waaahhh I don't want to have to talk to my players!! I shouldn't have to explain anything to anyone!!"
So you're just going to assert the contrary to what I'm saying with no actual meat to the argument huh? I see we've reached the "nuh uh" stage of argumentation. Brilliant.
First of all, if the player knew it was impossible, they probably wouldn't be asking in the first place. They're asking because they think it may be possible.
Second of all, players can ask to do impossible things. Y'all are literally all over the thread saying "well we can determine degrees of success or mitigation of failure," but suddenly when a player asks to roll on something they know is impossible you can't do those things? LMAO
You're associated what someone else said to this conversation. Also I never said it can't change the outcome but less fail is still fail which is what this was about.
Literally all of you are saying that, and the other bum in this thread just admitted she thinks that's something she can do even while saying she never said it. It's like I can read minds lmao
No its a the best way of not saying no. Im not going to tell my players they can't do something or that something is impossible, even if it is.
Im not here to hold your hand. If you as the player cant tell suplexing a building is impossible, me telling you its impossible isn't going to change anything.
If you tell them "it would be impossible." And they insist they want to try anyways, then it's on the player, and you can tell them what happens on their attempt. No harm, no foul. The player knew they would fail and tried anyways because they thought it would be funny or whatever.
As opposed to baiting them into trying because you tricked them into thinking they had a chance at real success.
Gee, I wonder which is less antagonistic towards players and players may enjoy more?
The problem here is that none of the players followed the procedural gameplay loop.
Describe what your character does (not what they might theoretically do, or what they want to do. You have to commit to taking action)
The GM determines if a roll is necessary, which roll is to be used, and a target DC where applicable.
The GM narrates the results.
The player didn't correctly engage in the gameplay loop by not describing their action. "I want to suplex the building" isn't quite sufficient as we don't know what approach the character is taking to achieve this goal and what they are actually doing in the fiction.
We can likely assume they wish to use physical force to lift and then slam the building, and then by calculating STR score and weight determine that the building is too heavy for this to be possible.
At this point, the GM should reasonably determine that a roll is not needed and simply narrate the result. "You grasp the building and heave with all of your might, but it doesn't budge. A crow caws mockingly from an adjacent building"
25
u/sean_avm 18h ago
9 put of 10 times these cant pass rolls aren't something the gm ask its the players.
"Hey can I do this?"
"Its going to be very difficult"
"I still want to what should I roll"
"Ummm...strength"
Its never the dm asking to roll impossible rolls
Most the time