I want my actions to matter

[bloodtide]

Okay. Are many of these players young? There seems to be some maturity issues, so I’m trying to understand.

Yes. I only game with adults. Most of them are 20 ish, or right around 30 or so.

I don’t think that the idea of actuons mattering in an RPG is vague at all. This is why I’m struggling with the question. There seems to be two things going on; the players are saying that when what they’re really trying to say something else, and you genuinely seem unsure what it means.

I doubt many of them know. They get told things by other players and reading the internet. And as "everyone" in their social group says and believes it...whatever it is....they must do so also.

I don’t know what “alter the game reality” means. You say it a lot, but it’s really not clear. I mean… game reality gets altered all the time. There’s a live goblin… the fighter hits it for 14 points of damage and it dies. The evil wizard casts a fireball and the barbarian fails his save, and he drops to zero hit points. These are examples of altering the game reality, and they’re always happening.

I'm talking about Altering Game Reality as part of the players Wish Fulfillment and Easy Button desires. When the Buddy DM/Player Advocate DM alters the game willing as the players want.

DM: "you see the locked vault door and the two iron golem guards"
Player: "AAAa...DM that is too hard"
DM: "Oh...um, you blink and see the vault is unlocked and there is just one sleeping goblin guard!"

Or like if the player does not like traps...the DM gives a nod and "yes player" then never ever has any traps in the game

Or when the character hits for four damage...and the player wants to win....so the DM just crosses off the 102 hp and says "oh your four points of damage kill the giant!".

It’s a pretty basic choice, but their decision will matter. It’ll affect what may happen to them, and the length of their journey. They opt for the open fields by the river. We roll to see if any events occur and a warband for another tribe, the Red Spears, comes upon the PCs.

A good enough base example. But your example is a Dice Deflection type (where the DM can "claim to do nothing" behind a roll of some dice). In my game, more things happen on the DM Whim Type game (the DM just decides what happens).

Other games and other GMs might have done this differently. I recently played in a 5e game where I decisions didn’t really matter. Our characters were on our way back to our hometown when we came across some bandits. Our bard tried to convince them not to mess with us. The GM called for a Persuasion roll. He didn’t share the DC. The player rolled an 18. The bandits attacked.

It felt like the fight was a foregone conclusion. That our actions didn’t matter, the game was going to go the way the Gm wanted it to go.

Ok, now this more in line what I was asking. It's also a good example of altering game reality. To start with the two base lines:

Mine: It's rare to the extreme for bandits to just "go away". Bandits want to kill and loot: it's their way of life. In general, you can't just "say" something to the bandits to make them leave. Not that it's impossible.....but it's rare.

The Other Side: Bandits are silly and pointless. Anyone can get rid of bandits, or anyone else, just by speaking a couple of words and persuading them to leave.

So rules wise I think it would be at least hard DC 20 to persuade bandits to just "move along and don't attack us". While the 'other type player thinks the DC should be easy, like below 10.

Though I'd also note Persuasion is not the ability to use vs bandits. Persuasion, by the rules, is only for "When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature" That does not fit a group of bandits. The 5E ability to influence a group of bandits is: Intimidate.

Players wanting their actions to matter is a pretty clear thing.

I wish.

 

[Campbell]

At least from my perspective wanting my actions to matter is just as much about meaningful fallout and complications arising from the decisions I make.

Like how when I last played Blades in the Dark my character, Tal Rajan, unleashing the demon Estraven, The Blood Moon, upon the Lockwood estate during an attempt to kidnap Madam Felicia Lockwood causing the entire estate to burn down in the inferno of Estraven's rage which led to a supernatural apocalypse from all the ghosts of the people who were burned alive. Also leading to complications with Estraven downstream.

Within the same score Tal also killed his brother, Nashala, who had sided with the Church of Ecstasy. Tal was then charged with paying his house a price for his brother's life which he refused to do since his brother was a traitor, prompting a later score where Tal had to face a tribunal to prove his worth and his brother's lack of worth.

That's decisions mattering as much as any of successes our crew accrued. It's hardly a matter of getting everything I or Tal wanted.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes. I only game with adults. Most of them are 20 ish, or right around 30 or so.

I doubt many of them know. They get told things by other players and reading the internet. And as "everyone" in their social group says and believes it...whatever it is....they must do so also.

Or maybe they have ideas about what they’d like out of the game? And maybe you don’t understand what they’re saying? And they don’t understand your expectations?

Because nothing you’re saying is making a lot of sense.

I'm talking about Altering Game Reality as part of the players Wish Fulfillment and Easy Button desires. When the Buddy DM/Player Advocate DM alters the game willing as the players want.

DM: "you see the locked vault door and the two iron golem guards"
Player: "AAAa...DM that is too hard"
DM: "Oh...um, you blink and see the vault is unlocked and there is just one sleeping goblin guard!"

Or like if the player does not like traps...the DM gives a nod and "yes player" then never ever has any traps in the game

Or when the character hits for four damage...and the player wants to win....so the DM just crosses off the 102 hp and says "oh your four points of damage kill the giant!".

What does any of this have to do with players’ actions mattering?

If I say I want my actions to matter, it doesn’t mean I don’t want a challenge. I don’t even understand how you could interpret one for the other.

A good enough base example. But your example is a Dice Deflection type (where the DM can "claim to do nothing" behind a roll of some dice). In my game, more things happen on the DM Whim Type game (the DM just decides what happens).

No, the GM doesn’t “do nothing”. The player rolls and depending on the result, the GM determines what happens. The GM is not free to just decide anything they want… it has to fit the result of the roll.

Ok, now this more in line what I was asking. It's also a good example of altering game reality. To start with the two base lines:

Mine: It's rare to the extreme for bandits to just "go away". Bandits want to kill and loot: it's their way of life. In general, you can't just "say" something to the bandits to make them leave. Not that it's impossible.....but it's rare.

The Other Side: Bandits are silly and pointless. Anyone can get rid of bandits, or anyone else, just by speaking a couple of words and persuading them to leave.

Neither of these two sides you suggest applied.

Bandits want to loot, yes, but they don’t want to die. They seek relatively easy prey. A group of adventurers in D&D is anything but easy prey.

So rules wise I think it would be at least hard DC 20 to persuade bandits to just "move along and don't attack us". While the 'other type player thinks the DC should be easy, like below 10.

Though I'd also note Persuasion is not the ability to use vs bandits. Persuasion, by the rules, is only for "When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature" That does not fit a group of bandits. The 5E ability to influence a group of bandits is: Intimidate.

I think Persuasion applied because of the way the Bars approached the move. He explained to them that we had just slain a group of trolls, and that we’d had enough violence for the day.

But the issue isn’t the skill used. It’s that the DC wasn’t shared. We have no idea what the chances were, or if the roll actually succeeded. As I said, the fight seemed like a foregone conclusion… so we fought. And we mopped the floor with the bandits.

This is part of it as well. If players are going to know that their actions matter, it helps to be transparent about things like DCs and so forth before a roll is made.

I wish.

Well, you seem to think it means that the players want an easy challenge. I don’t understamd why. I’ve never experienced anything like what you’re describing. Most of the time, players wanting actions to matter is about consequences as much as it is about achievement. They want to know what’s at stake and the odds beforehand, so then when they see how the dice land, they know how things will go, and more importantly, they know WHY things go that way.

 

[Melfast]

Yes. I only game with adults. Most of them are 20 ish, or right around 30 or so.

I doubt many of them know. They get told things by other players and reading the internet. And as "everyone" in their social group says and believes it...whatever it is....they must do so also.



I'm talking about Altering Game Reality as part of the players Wish Fulfillment and Easy Button desires. When the Buddy DM/Player Advocate DM alters the game willing as the players want.

DM: "you see the locked vault door and the two iron golem guards"
Player: "AAAa...DM that is too hard"
DM: "Oh...um, you blink and see the vault is unlocked and there is just one sleeping goblin guard!"

Or like if the player does not like traps...the DM gives a nod and "yes player" then never ever has any traps in the game

Or when the character hits for four damage...and the player wants to win....so the DM just crosses off the 102 hp and says "oh your four points of damage kill the giant!".

A good enough base example. But your example is a Dice Deflection type (where the DM can "claim to do nothing" behind a roll of some dice). In my game, more things happen on the DM Whim Type game (the DM just decides what happens).

Ok, now this more in line what I was asking. It's also a good example of altering game reality. To start with the two base lines:

Mine: It's rare to the extreme for bandits to just "go away". Bandits want to kill and loot: it's their way of life. In general, you can't just "say" something to the bandits to make them leave. Not that it's impossible.....but it's rare.

The Other Side: Bandits are silly and pointless. Anyone can get rid of bandits, or anyone else, just by speaking a couple of words and persuading them to leave.

So rules wise I think it would be at least hard DC 20 to persuade bandits to just "move along and don't attack us". While the 'other type player thinks the DC should be easy, like below 10.

Though I'd also note Persuasion is not the ability to use vs bandits. Persuasion, by the rules, is only for "When you attempt to influence someone or a group of people with tact, social graces, or good nature" That does not fit a group of bandits. The 5E ability to influence a group of bandits is: Intimidate.


I wish.

It seems to me the problem may be related to expectations, and how each person sees the game being played. Some people may be used to games where dice rolls can allow anything to happen as long as you roll high enough, where others expect that the rolls are bounded by the narrative. The classic example is the Bard trying to convince the king to give up their throne to them, and rolling a 20. The Bard player says they succeeded because they rolled so high (possibly over 30 total). The DM says no, regardless of how high you rolled, the king is not going to give up his throne to the Bard based on a persuasion roll. This is a case where the player explains what they are trying to accomplish, and the DM tells them what is possible. If it is not possible, the player does not get to roll at all. This does not make the PC's actions not have agency; they need to try something else. They can plan a revolution, start planning with disaffected nobles, etc. to take over the kingdom.

If they want to cross a rift that is 100' feet wide, they are not going to be able to just jump over it, regardless of their roll (barring magic aid of course). They will need to work out another way to do it. They can still cross the rift if they want to, they just need to plan it out better. What the DM should not do, in my opinion, is just close down things players want to do arbitrarily.

The PC's are in the casino and want to rob it. The DM says, you can't because it is too well guarded. That removes their agency. If it is is a high end casino, and there are guards all around, the PC's ought to expect the money vaults to be well guarded. If it is a fly-by-night casino that opens up at night inside a warehouse, and then closes down before the warehouse needs to be used for trade, it is likely the PC's will expect it to not have all the same protections, vaults, etc. as the high end casino. To do a heist at either place, though, they still need to make preparations, and they still need to tell you what they are doing, but they should be able to take actions and make choices that matter in both cases.

Where I sometimes get frustrated is when players expect to make a die roll without any other effort, and just get what they want. This is where communication and expectations are key. This may also be where you are feeling frustrated. I suggest setting expectations that there are no die rolls unless you ask for them, and that they come after the PC's explain what they want and what they are doing to get it. Then there can be some discussion about what they are trying to do, what they know, and what are the possible results of success or failure. Hope this helps.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'm talking about Altering Game Reality as part of the players Wish Fulfillment and Easy Button desires. When the Buddy DM/Player Advocate DM alters the game willing as the players want.

DM: "you see the locked vault door and the two iron golem guards"
Player: "AAAa...DM that is too hard"
DM: "Oh...um, you blink and see the vault is unlocked and there is just one sleeping goblin guard!"

Or like if the player does not like traps...the DM gives a nod and "yes player" then never ever has any traps in the game

Or when the character hits for four damage...and the player wants to win....so the DM just crosses off the 102 hp and says "oh your four points of damage kill the giant!".

has anyone besides Bloodtide actually experienced any of these or had anything vaguely similar happening in their own games? these feel like these are overblown and reductive scenarioes put in an even poorer light from their dismissive attitude to the players wanting or 'not wanting'...well anything really?
Edit: also that same dismissive attitude to the idea of any GM who would go to that extent to kowtow to their player's desires.

 

[aramis erak]

has anyone besides Bloodtide actually experienced any of these or had anything vaguely similar happening in their own games? these feel like these are overblown and reductive scenarioes put in an even poorer light from their dismissive attitude to the players wanting or 'not wanting'...well anything really?
Edit: also that same dismissive attitude to the idea of any GM who would go to that extent to kowtow to their player's desires.

I've had similar issues a few times - but only in the 1990ś.
I've had players complain about how their choices mattered, but not since the early days has it been that their choices don't. In a couple cases, in retrospect, yeah, I went a bit to far in warping the backgrounds.
At the same time, tho', their choices mattered, and they griped that I was making them matter in ways they couldn´t forsee, and that it was unfair, ill informed, even openly hostile.

 

[pointofyou]

has anyone besides Bloodtide actually experienced any of these or had anything vaguely similar happening in their own games? these feel like these are overblown and reductive scenarioes put in an even poorer light from their dismissive attitude to the players wanting or 'not wanting'...well anything really?
Edit: also that same dismissive attitude to the idea of any GM who would go to that extent to kowtow to their player's desires.

I've been playing TRPGs since the mid-1980s and I've never seen this. I've seen mismatched expectations a time or three but nothing so over-the-top as everything the OP says.

 

[bloodtide]

has anyone besides Bloodtide actually experienced any of these or had anything vaguely similar happening in their own games? these feel like these are overblown and reductive scenarioes put in an even poorer light from their dismissive attitude to the players wanting or 'not wanting'...well anything really?

It would seem doubtful anyone would post so. But then no one online ever seems to notice such things. It's one of those things like Rubbernecking: everyone will swear they would never, ever do it......and YET every single time there is an accident nearly EVERYONE rubbernecks to look...and especially everyone who swore they would "never" do it.

It seems to me the problem may be related to expectations, and how each person sees the game being played. Some people may be used to games where dice rolls can allow anything to happen as long as you roll high enough, where others expect that the rolls are bounded by the narrative. The classic example is the Bard trying to convince the king to give up their throne to them, and rolling a 20. The Bard player says they succeeded because they rolled so high (possibly over 30 total). The DM says no, regardless of how high you rolled, the king is not going to give up his throne to the Bard based on a persuasion roll.

This is a big part of the problem. Though it's a bit odd as most games do have limits in the rules for such things, and might even have text that says "no matter how high the roll is you can never persuade a king to give up the throne and name your character king for life." I lot of players and many DMs think persuasion is total mind control, that is altering game reality.

If they want to cross a rift that is 100' feet wide, they are not going to be able to just jump over it, regardless of their roll (barring magic aid of course). They will need to work out another way to do it. They can still cross the rift if they want to, they just need to plan it out better. What the DM should not do, in my opinion, is just close down things players want to do arbitrarily.

Weirdly, only some players will accept their character can't just make a mundane jump over a 100' rift. The rest fall under the "high roll alter reality" problem and will say if the roll high their character can jump anything the player wants.

And why should a DM not just shut down impossible or near impossible thing? The deluded player thinks "My character will just walk up to the king and the king will give my character 100 billion gold coins". Is it not just better for the DM to say "no". Is there anything to be gained by wasting the 10 minutes to role play out the character walking up to the king and the player making a high roll? The player will sit there and say "my persuasion total is 18, so the king gives my character 100 billion gold coins."

And sure the above is a silly extreme....though not above some players delusions. But for more reasonable things....why is it such a problem for players to accept somethings sometimes might be difficult, hard, very hard, near impossible or impossible. Why do players get so fixated on everything must be super easy?

The PC's are in the casino and want to rob it. The DM says, you can't because it is too well guarded. That removes their agency. If it is is a high end casino, and there are guards all around, the PC's ought to expect the money vaults to be well guarded. If it is a fly-by-night casino that opens up at night inside a warehouse, and then closes down before the warehouse needs to be used for trade, it is likely the PC's will expect it to not have all the same protections, vaults, etc. as the high end casino. To do a heist at either place, though, they still need to make preparations, and they still need to tell you what they are doing, but they should be able to take actions and make choices that matter in both cases.

I think the DM should describe how well guarded something is....though this won't work too often as many players won't understand anyway. Few players understand concepts like "security".

Worse is when the group is like a halfling fighter, a half elf arcane archer, a tabaxi barbarian and a human 'death' cleric. Not exactly a good 'heist' group. Like the barbarian can do some damage with their claws...but that does not directly help with the heist at all.

Where I sometimes get frustrated is when players expect to make a die roll without any other effort, and just get what they want. This is where communication and expectations are key. This may also be where you are feeling frustrated. I suggest setting expectations that there are no die rolls unless you ask for them, and that they come after the PC's explain what they want and what they are doing to get it. Then there can be some discussion about what they are trying to do, what they know, and what are the possible results of success or failure. Hope this helps.

This does not work for me at all. I don't want to pause the game every couple of minutes to just "talk" to the players and try to explain things like locked doors and fences to the players.

I get a LOT of games are like this. They pause the game every couple of minutes to talk...and goof off.

hat does any of this have to do with players’ actions mattering?

If I say I want my actions to matter, it doesn’t mean I don’t want a challenge. I don’t even understand how you could interpret one for the other.

Right but this is the problem. When talking about vague nothings players will say they "want a challenge", but in the game they will just complain whenever they can't just do an action with easily with no effort.

And the connection between players wanting their actions to matter and altering the game reality to make their action matter seems very clear.

No, the GM doesn’t “do nothing”. The player rolls and depending on the result, the GM determines what happens. The GM is not free to just decide anything they want… it has to fit the result of the roll.

There are some games that make a big push to make the whole game this Dice First Style. Though in piratical game play the DM can't just roll the dice first for everything. Most of the time the DM just needs to decide things on a whim.

Neither of these two sides you suggest applied.

Bandits want to loot, yes, but they don’t want to die. They seek relatively easy prey. A group of adventurers in D&D is anything but easy prey.

I guess you can randomly say this and think it's a truth. But how true is it? If in your game you have some sort of special houserule that 'adventures' are famous and seen as demigods, that is one thing. But why would you think it's automatically universal?

And if the group of adventures are not 'easy targets', then the game should have no encounters, right? As all NPCs will just give up as they know they are over matched....

I think Persuasion applied because of the way the Bars approached the move. He explained to them that we had just slain a group of trolls, and that we’d had enough violence for the day.

Yea, ignore the rules you don't like.

But the issue isn’t the skill used. It’s that the DC wasn’t shared. We have no idea what the chances were, or if the roll actually succeeded. As I said, the fight seemed like a foregone conclusion… so we fought. And we mopped the floor with the bandits.

This is part of it as well. If players are going to know that their actions matter, it helps to be transparent about things like DCs and so forth before a roll is made.

This might be a big part. Many, many DMs follow the idea of telling the players all the DCs. It's a typical buddy DM thing to do: ""ok players the DC is 11, lets roll to see what the dice will tell us what happens".

Well, you seem to think it means that the players want an easy challenge. I don’t understamd why. I’ve never experienced anything like what you’re describing. Most of the time, players wanting actions to matter is about consequences as much as it is about achievement. They want to know what’s at stake and the odds beforehand, so then when they see how the dice land, they know how things will go, and more importantly, they know WHY things go that way.

I think this might be the answer.....

The bad player types don't role play, pay much attention or immerse themselves in the game world. They just do stuff at random.

So the answer would seem to be to force the players to role play, pay attention, and immerse themselves in the game....even when they don't want too.

 

[DarkCrisis]

Had my D&D 5E group try 2E and the guy who plays a melee type said "I feel like what I do matters." when I asked what he thought of 2E. I was pleased.

 

[Maxperson]

This comes up often in my games, and it came up on another thread here too.

When a player is asked what they want out of an RPG game, a very common answer many players give is that they "want their actions to matter". And, sure, as some blind general bomb throwing it does sound great. But how doe this work out in actual game play?

For example, one player says something like this "I want my actions to matter. That means that if I do something unexpected, the DM doesn't shut it down or just make it unimpactful if should have impact. Even if it's something the DM predicted might be done by me, let it still have the full impact that it should. It also means that if I wander away from a plot hook, it won't follow me and hook me against my will."

And sure, the above sound great. Except in game play where it does sound like the player just wants to be able to alter game reality on a whim. Of course, the player will snap back that is not what they mean. So, what DO they mean?

So...

That means that if I do something unexpected, the DM doesn't shut it down or just make it unimpactful if should have impact.

Does not come remotely close to equating to altering game reality on a whim. And it's the expected course for the DM to take. If the DM inappropriately shuts down something that should work, that's not a DM worth playing with. It's okay for something to work better than the DM expected and should be embraced by the DM, not shut down.

Even if it's something the DM predicted might be done by me, let it still have the full impact that it should.

Well, duh. Of course it should have the impact that it should. Again, a DM who is negating the impact of something inappropriately isn't worth playing with. And this is also not even close to equating to the player altering game reality on a whim.

It also means that if I wander away from a plot hook, it won't follow me and hook me against my will."

This should be allowed unless the players agreed prior to the first session not to walk away from hooks. The DM should throw out plot hooks and if the players bite, they bite. If not, not. Also, players who come up with their own hooks should be embraced as well. If I don't want to chase down your murder clown and instead want to go north to become chief of the Icepoohbear Barbarians, that's still a hook you can run with.

How does a DM "let a player do something unexpected" with out "shutting it down" or making it have "no impact". Assuming the player is being reasonable, they don't want to alter the game reality in their favor on a whim. So what do they want?

They want you to not shut it down or reduce the impact, which is by default, reasonable and NOT altering game reality in their favor on a whim.

There is a vault full of gold, and the player wants to "unexpectedly" rob it. So, does the DM just say "your character now has a billion gold coins"? Because if the DM even says "well the vault is locked" then the player will whine they are being "shut down" by the DM.....right?

This is just flat out wrong. I'm pretty sure that just about every player would expect the vault to be locked. Not only locked, but have other defenses as well. If you don't have pre-set defenses(and that means you don't get to just invent counters to what they do as they do it) that can stop them, they should succeed and it's your fault if you put in a billion coins that are that easily obtainable.

Another example player might say : "I want to make choices for my character that actually matter. My preference is a purely open-world sandbox. The players pick the direction and go, which direction they go actually matters. The players pick the quests, assignments, missions, etc. The players determine what they do, where they go, etc. I'm perfectly fine with the referee making the challenges difficult, opposition smart, etc but I'd rather read a novel if the referee is going to force feed us their precious story or linear plot."

This is actually the same as your first example. Oh, and story is fine. Just not force fed story. Same with linear. A dungeon is linear. You go in and wander around a bit, then you walk out. Linear is fine. Railroading, including illusionism, is wrong unless the players have given you express permission in advance to do it.

It does sound great for the players to pick the quest, but once the players pick a path that does set a lot of things in the game.

It can, yes.

Can anyone give me an example or two that make sense? How does a DM "allow a characters actions to matter" without just altering the game reality for the players whim and not even playing a game?

You keep using "whim" and "altering game reality" which none of the things you mention actually do. The Wish spell alters the game reality. My rogue climbing into the lord's house and stealing his wife's jeweled oil lamp to sell when you didn't expect it, isn't altering the game reality. It's engaging the game reality as it was set up. Even if you didn't expect that sort of engagement.

Also, something you don't seem to be understanding with your post. Mattering does not equate to succeeding. The player can fail, and if he fails fairly and not because the DM is arbitrarily shutting the player down and/or inappropriately rendering the actions less effective, then that's fine.