Per the rules, I call for checks when the outcome of the task is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. There are approaches that make achieving the goal more difficult, however, which is why the DM is tasked by the rules to set DCs and/or grant advantage or disadvantage depending on what the player describes as wanting to do (in addition to just saying something succeeds or fails outright).
Yes?
I take it you agree with my statement then, since you quoted the rulebook yet again about something that is completely parallel to my point? Or, do you think that if a DM is going to label approaches as "good" or "bad" they are still impartially judging whether a task is uncertain and if there is a meaningful consequence for failure, as per the PHB?
Because they have a possibility of failure and consequences for failure. I don’t mean to come off accusatory here either, but... how is this only striking you now? Haven’t we been discussing this for the past 100 pages? Wasn’t the fact that checks always have consequences your primary objection to my way of running things?
Maybe it just stood out to me in your phrasing... but don't you find it weird to actively avoid the resolution mechanic of a game?
Looking at it, "they have the possibility of failure", that makes it sound like by getting a check called for... the player has somehow failed. I'm not trying to say that is how you resolve things, I understand you only call for checks when those three criteria are met, no need to repeat them, but take a step back and think about this in a pure sit down to play any game in the world context.
You are warning players when they are about to use the main resolution mechanic of the game. By that resolution mechanic being called on, you are allowing the possibility of failure to enter the game. It is purely negative. There is no upside.
That's weird right? It is a d20 system, but rolling the dice is the worst outcome for the player, they should be warned, prepared, have the option to back out and find another way. They should not roll dice.
It just never struck me before that was the type of mindset you had. It just never registered, because I've never considered using the primary resolution mechanic of the game to be a bad
You have demonstrated that you have direct experience with your style of DMing. You have also demonstrated such difficulty in understanding the goal and approach style, that it did not seem likely to me that you had any experience running a game that way. Not wanting to assume, I asked for clarification.
But in this exact conversation thread, we aren't talking about goal and approach. We are talking about whether or not giving players information on the consequences of their actions leads to better and more dramatic roleplaying. That has nothing to do with how the players approach the problem and all about how much we tell them.
So why does my experience with how the players present their actions to me matter? Do you think that because my players do not always present their actions in goal and approach that I've never had them attempt to solve a dangerous situation? That they have never entered into a dramatic moment where their success or failure could change the course of the game? Do I have direct experience with these sorts of situations or am I simply theorizing what players may find engaging and exciting was your exact question. It has nothing to do with style.
Right, but if you’re the GM, you’re the one who decided that this chandelier is liable to break for a reason that the character has no way of boing about. Your reasoning for not telling the player that the chandelier might fall if they try to jump on it is that their character couldn’t know that. But their character could know that, if you hadn’t designed the challenge in such a way that they couldn’t. I’m sorry, but to me that feels like a gotcha. If your players are cool with you setting up challenges this way, that’s awesome, but personally, as a DM, I would not feel comfortable doing that.
I must assume you have entirely forgotten the where this chandelier example came from, otherwise you I don't see how this could possibly be a "Gotcha". To remind you of the scenario.
You are standing in on the second floor of a mansion, guards are charging up the stairs and you need to escape. You see a window and a chandelier, across from which is a ledge leading somewhere else, in addition to the stairs leading down. What do you do?
It is possible that by deciding to jump on the chandelier and use it as a means of travel, the player might have to roll a check. It seems likely, chandelier jumping is dangerous stuff. IF they fail this check, then perhaps instead of "you miss" it could be that they land heavily on one side, and with a snap the chandelier breaks from the ceiling and crashes to the ground.
There is no gotcha here, the player can't spend 10 minutes checking the stability of the chandelier. It is a viable option, but a failed check might lead to it breaking, and the player doesn't know it could break. The challenge has nothing to do with the chandelier, excepting that it might be a solution, the challenge is "escape from the guards" and there is no gotcha in allowing the player to make a choice. They could try tumbling past the guards and sliding down the stair's railing. They could jump out the window. They could teleport somewhere. They could scream and throw a table and scare the guards off. But each of those actions might also fail in some way, and if you jump on a chandelier and land wrong, you might break it.
Not really. “Dangerous magical disturbance” could mean a lot of things, and assuming it means “magic explosion” could be dangerous, if it actually means “will summon a random creature from a random plane of existentence,” for example. You might make preparations for an explosion like taking cover or quaffing a potion of fire resistance or something, and then find yourself dealing with a Marid or something instead of what you expected to happen. And that’s kind of the point of the method. You’re dealing with the consequences of your decisions, instead of the consequences of a poor dice roll. I, as a player, would find it to be a much more satisfying experience having to fight that Marid after having expected a magical explosion than taking a magical explosion after not having known what to expect might happen as a result of my failure on an Arcana check to disrupt a ritual circle. The former is my own fault for not having investigated further to confirm my suspicions. The latter is just an unpredictable mishap that occurred as a result of a crappy dice roll.
If you decide to mess with a clearly dangerous magical circle, to attempt to deactivate it in a safe manner, and it fails, how are you not dealing with the consequences of your decisions?
Honestly, if you make the decision to mess with dangerous things, no matter what bad thing happens, is that not a consequence of your decision? Doing more research into the energies of the circle could tell you something, it could not, depends on the exact circumstances, it might just tell you "chaotic magical energies are held in place by this circle". Can you know the results of "chaotic magical energies"? Does not knowing invalidate your decision to try and disperse it?
Sometimes not knowing is equally fun to knowing. Sometimes it is more fun. Sometimes it is less fun. Regardless, if you declare an action, your character has taken an action. If there is a negative result from that action, you are dealing with the consequences of that action. Yes, if I say someone is yelling for help, you declare you run to see what is going on, and I tell you you take fire damage from the burning building they just ran into, that is bad DMing. But your decision to try and disable a magic circle humming with energy is not invalidated if when you fail I decide to teleport the entire party to the Far North instead of having it all unleash in a massive fireball like you expected. It is clear that in failing to properly disperse a large amount of magical energy
something would happen, but not knowing exactly what doesn't seem like it should ruin your fun. Your character can't see the future after all.
