So, i have some questions to see how other Gms interpret things and such in their games. While RAW cites are fine for those who see them as important to the point, this is more akin to a question of how you manage this and I am not all that interested in whether you can provide six rule cites chapter in verse or not.
The basic issue is one of "player" vs "character" competence and assumptions.
EXAMPLE: The PCs are pursuing some bad guys, known bad guys, like say a posse tracking outlaws.
In one such case in a published product the rules provide this pearl a ruling.
"If players state that they’re watching for potential ambush spots, give them advantage when making these checks"
[FONT=Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, i make no attempt to hide my dislike for that kind of thing. The "character" is the skilled actor and the character should be much more determinant of success fail than if the player says the right words even when the **in character actions** are no different. [/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif]If this rule was based on in-character actions/trade-offs, that would be fine - "if the characters move cautiously, checking for tracks, they will travel slower but gain advantage on checks for spotting ambushes. As a result of moving cautiously... bla blah" where the slower movement causes maybe more encounters/checks with wandering beasties, the "catch to be either closer to the enemy camp or even not able to catch the camp, etc or a chance that a storm wipes away the tracks etc. Also, certain features or proficiencies could also trigger the change in the odds of spotting - like say favored terrain/enemies. Focus is on whether the character is going to be exceptional at the spotting, whether the characters take a deliberate trade-offs to gain help at the spotting and not whether a player says the right phrase with no actual changes to in-game actions. Even if they added "but the character would suffer a disadvantage on other checks for perception due to being focused on the ambush sites" that would provide an actual differentiation between those "looking for ambushes" and those not.
[/FONT]Do you get advantage normally for saying "i am looking for goblins?" or "i am looking for a river"?
[FONT=Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif]In past games, back in the day, this kind of "you didn't say that you were..." and "if the player says..." has at times led (for some) to the creation of "defensive write-ups" where characters are stated to "always be doing..." or "our standard door protocol is..." etc etc so as to make sure the "best statements" always get made by means of pre-written details. Not a fan myself but hey, if its encouraged by a lot of "if you say..." i will use it myself as a player.[/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif]In past games, sometimes the Gm ruled that it was the characters who were presumed competent enough to not need explicit statement of the rather obvious - your character would be looking for ambushes if they were at all competent in the subject - letting character skill determine the discipline and eye for detail.
[/FONT]So, where do you fall in play on any of these kinds of things?
Have you seen "i always..." or written up "stabdard procedure for abc" kinds of things and if so, how did you manage it, how did it play out, did it make the game more fun, less fun, faster, slower etc?
Do you normally find it useful or beneficial to have and use many/some of the "if the players state..." kinds of things where it is more like a statement of intent than a differentiation of character actions? (No, "but suffers disadvantage on other perception checks" and no "moves slower so..." etc to make it anything more than just a "player skill" check)? if so, how as it useful or beneficial or more fun or what?
Do you normally allow "if the players state they are looking for ABC gain advantage on checks to spot ABC" for anything in your games? if so... what and how has that worked out for you, more fun, less fun, quicker, slower etc?
OPINION - for myself, i fall in the "character competence" and "action trade-off" side of the coin and very much against the kind of things shown by that WotC published "if the players state..." example. i don't want my players getting concerned with out loud "covering all their bases" with a laundry list of "no reason not to..." declarations/disclaimers that make it feel more like the small print at the bottom of TV drug adds than a playtime of adventurers (to me.)
just curious on views and how it is played across the Gms - no right or wrong answers whether i agree or disagree or not.
Thanks.
The basic issue is one of "player" vs "character" competence and assumptions.
EXAMPLE: The PCs are pursuing some bad guys, known bad guys, like say a posse tracking outlaws.
In one such case in a published product the rules provide this pearl a ruling.
"If players state that they’re watching for potential ambush spots, give them advantage when making these checks"
[FONT=Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, i make no attempt to hide my dislike for that kind of thing. The "character" is the skilled actor and the character should be much more determinant of success fail than if the player says the right words even when the **in character actions** are no different. [/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif]If this rule was based on in-character actions/trade-offs, that would be fine - "if the characters move cautiously, checking for tracks, they will travel slower but gain advantage on checks for spotting ambushes. As a result of moving cautiously... bla blah" where the slower movement causes maybe more encounters/checks with wandering beasties, the "catch to be either closer to the enemy camp or even not able to catch the camp, etc or a chance that a storm wipes away the tracks etc. Also, certain features or proficiencies could also trigger the change in the odds of spotting - like say favored terrain/enemies. Focus is on whether the character is going to be exceptional at the spotting, whether the characters take a deliberate trade-offs to gain help at the spotting and not whether a player says the right phrase with no actual changes to in-game actions. Even if they added "but the character would suffer a disadvantage on other checks for perception due to being focused on the ambush sites" that would provide an actual differentiation between those "looking for ambushes" and those not.
[/FONT]Do you get advantage normally for saying "i am looking for goblins?" or "i am looking for a river"?
[FONT=Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif]In past games, back in the day, this kind of "you didn't say that you were..." and "if the player says..." has at times led (for some) to the creation of "defensive write-ups" where characters are stated to "always be doing..." or "our standard door protocol is..." etc etc so as to make sure the "best statements" always get made by means of pre-written details. Not a fan myself but hey, if its encouraged by a lot of "if you say..." i will use it myself as a player.[/FONT]
[FONT=Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif]In past games, sometimes the Gm ruled that it was the characters who were presumed competent enough to not need explicit statement of the rather obvious - your character would be looking for ambushes if they were at all competent in the subject - letting character skill determine the discipline and eye for detail.
[/FONT]So, where do you fall in play on any of these kinds of things?
Have you seen "i always..." or written up "stabdard procedure for abc" kinds of things and if so, how did you manage it, how did it play out, did it make the game more fun, less fun, faster, slower etc?
Do you normally find it useful or beneficial to have and use many/some of the "if the players state..." kinds of things where it is more like a statement of intent than a differentiation of character actions? (No, "but suffers disadvantage on other perception checks" and no "moves slower so..." etc to make it anything more than just a "player skill" check)? if so, how as it useful or beneficial or more fun or what?
Do you normally allow "if the players state they are looking for ABC gain advantage on checks to spot ABC" for anything in your games? if so... what and how has that worked out for you, more fun, less fun, quicker, slower etc?
OPINION - for myself, i fall in the "character competence" and "action trade-off" side of the coin and very much against the kind of things shown by that WotC published "if the players state..." example. i don't want my players getting concerned with out loud "covering all their bases" with a laundry list of "no reason not to..." declarations/disclaimers that make it feel more like the small print at the bottom of TV drug adds than a playtime of adventurers (to me.)
just curious on views and how it is played across the Gms - no right or wrong answers whether i agree or disagree or not.
Thanks.