I thought he was describing an early generation GM AI.
I was. Rolled out in 1979. Still running today with a whole lot of training applied.
I thought he was describing an early generation GM AI.
Asking for an approach is not an exercise in pixel bitching.
In regard to the application of passive checks, the approach and goal of a "passive" task is likely to vary a great deal from table to table.
This is a great item. I wouldn't quit a game over it, but I think this is a common problem for new DMs. My formula was to start out with one location in a small town, and each session introduce one or two NPCs until I had enough to have them start recurring. Soon, a campaign takes shape. A lot of people I suspect buy these 200 page books with multiple locations and think they can do it too. Maybe they can, but it is setting yourself up for a lot of work you don't need.
D&D should get back to concepts like B1 In Search Of The Unknown and do some product for new DMs, that teach you how to DM. All the books assume you just know what you're doing but that's not the case. When you buy a board game they often give examples of play, D&D is a lot more work than a board game and new DMs need help. Heck, I need help.
- Games where the scope is well beyond the DM's capacity to run. Show me a new DM with a "world map" that includes more than three locations and I'll show you a game that won't be well-focused for quite some time.
I'm not sure how you come away with this from my post. So let me be more clear: If a player is indicating a desire to go from one place to another in the city, I'm going to ask what the character does along the way. If the player establishes that the character is doing anything that distracts from being vigilant, then he or she has no chance of noticing the pickpocket.
Ok, I'll chime in here to play fiend's advocate: a player should not really invoke their skill proficiency as if that alone is a stated action. The player should just describe an actual action their PC is taking and the goal the PC hopes to achieve. It's up to the DM to then ask for a specific roll, if a roll is in fact required. The DM might even give the player multiple options...
Better:
Scenario 1a
GM: You see a statue of a woman holding a scythe.
Player: I'd like to carefully view the statue from where I am - I'm not stepping closer or touching it yet. Do I know who she is?
GM: Roll INT\Religion or INT\History please, DC 17.
Player: I roll an 18 for Religion.
GM: It is a statue of Kishar, the goddess of agriculture.
This had better be Harmon Quest, otherwise g'day sir, enjoy your game without me.
Well, in a strange way, I continue to be oppressed.
You continue to be very coherent with your process of play, following it consistently and unswervingly to its logical conclusions. I can't fault the rigor of your thinking.
But on the other hand, you've laid down an ultimatum regarding your minimum standards of play, that as best as I can guess would drive every single player I've had in 30 years of gaming from my table. Far from actually increasing player agency, the declaration that no ability check can be imposed on a player - which you originally defended on the grounds a DM that imposed one was playing the PC - is in your hands one of the broadest licenses to railroad by handwaving I've ever seen a GM issue to themselves.