Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Crawford on Stealth
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7100059" data-attributes="member: 97077"><p>To me this looks like you swung between two extremes - too much specificity and not enough. I suggest a reasonable standard of specificity, that is, enough where the DM doesn't have to assume what the characters are actually doing, but not so much that the game is bogged down. That reasonable specificity is incentivized with automatic success where applicable. Because if you don't have to roll to find the treasure or whatever, that's way better than leaving it to the dice.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It will be found <em>if the PC is engaged in that task</em>. Passive Perception doesn't capture everything all the time - just those tasks with an uncertain outcome where a passive Perception check would apply. If they are not engaged in that task, then passive Perception isn't used to resolve any uncertainty as to the outcome of said task. The trick is to make those tasks be legit trade-offs. "You can do X, but you can't also do Y at the same time which could mean Z." One task at a time, generally speaking (unless you're a ranger in favored terrain).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't really see the upside to this approach. More process for what gain?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's a lot to unpack in what you're saying here. So please bear with me.</p><p></p><p>First, players don't get to choose to make checks. They can only describe what they want to do. The DM takes it from there, narrating the results. Sometimes the DM is uncertain as to the result, so a check is required. Whether that's a passive check or a regular ability check (notice I don't say "active check" or "active roll" because that is misleading) depends on whether it's a task the PC is performing repetitively or "in general" while traveling the adventure location.</p><p></p><p>So that deals with the issue of players rolling repeatedly "until they roll a natural 20."</p><p></p><p>Further, if there's no time pressure or other meaningful consequence of failure (or there is time pressure but the PCs don't care), then the rules state that the PCs just succeed in the task they're attempting. So if the players say something reasonably specific along the lines of "We exhaustively toss this room floor to ceiling for anything notable, poking around every nook and cranny, taking whatever time we need to be thorough..." then you just tell them what they find without a check, passive or otherwise. I suggest making time or making noise matter with wandering monster checks, of course, but that's a separate matter.</p><p></p><p>So that shows an example of reasonable specificity obviating the necessity to go to the mechanics to resolve the action.</p><p></p><p>The issue with just letting the roll determine what the PCs actually did as you suggest is that this is in my view the DM overstepping his or her role in the game by establishing what the characters are doing rather than simply narrating the results of what the players say they try to do. You can run into a lot of problems by doing this if the players aren't onboard with what the DM establishes their characters as doing (that usually comes up when something bad happens e.g. "I didn't say I looked under the bed!").</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7100059, member: 97077"] To me this looks like you swung between two extremes - too much specificity and not enough. I suggest a reasonable standard of specificity, that is, enough where the DM doesn't have to assume what the characters are actually doing, but not so much that the game is bogged down. That reasonable specificity is incentivized with automatic success where applicable. Because if you don't have to roll to find the treasure or whatever, that's way better than leaving it to the dice. It will be found [I]if the PC is engaged in that task[/I]. Passive Perception doesn't capture everything all the time - just those tasks with an uncertain outcome where a passive Perception check would apply. If they are not engaged in that task, then passive Perception isn't used to resolve any uncertainty as to the outcome of said task. The trick is to make those tasks be legit trade-offs. "You can do X, but you can't also do Y at the same time which could mean Z." One task at a time, generally speaking (unless you're a ranger in favored terrain). I don't really see the upside to this approach. More process for what gain? There's a lot to unpack in what you're saying here. So please bear with me. First, players don't get to choose to make checks. They can only describe what they want to do. The DM takes it from there, narrating the results. Sometimes the DM is uncertain as to the result, so a check is required. Whether that's a passive check or a regular ability check (notice I don't say "active check" or "active roll" because that is misleading) depends on whether it's a task the PC is performing repetitively or "in general" while traveling the adventure location. So that deals with the issue of players rolling repeatedly "until they roll a natural 20." Further, if there's no time pressure or other meaningful consequence of failure (or there is time pressure but the PCs don't care), then the rules state that the PCs just succeed in the task they're attempting. So if the players say something reasonably specific along the lines of "We exhaustively toss this room floor to ceiling for anything notable, poking around every nook and cranny, taking whatever time we need to be thorough..." then you just tell them what they find without a check, passive or otherwise. I suggest making time or making noise matter with wandering monster checks, of course, but that's a separate matter. So that shows an example of reasonable specificity obviating the necessity to go to the mechanics to resolve the action. The issue with just letting the roll determine what the PCs actually did as you suggest is that this is in my view the DM overstepping his or her role in the game by establishing what the characters are doing rather than simply narrating the results of what the players say they try to do. You can run into a lot of problems by doing this if the players aren't onboard with what the DM establishes their characters as doing (that usually comes up when something bad happens e.g. "I didn't say I looked under the bed!"). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Crawford on Stealth
Top