D&D 5E "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.

[Jefe Bergenstein]

That's how I see "new skool" play - ever-increasing references to meta-mechanics (of which Perception is but one) and consequently less actual roleplaying of the character you rolled - which, ideally, shouldn't really involve dice at all except in combat.

It isn't a "meta"-mechanic in the term metagaming is used, ie, info outside what would be available to your character in-game. The perception score is the EXACT opposite. It is the filter that establishes what info the character would glean, and is therefore passed onto the player. I describe scenes based on the Perception score of the character.

"Old Skool" eschews playing the character and its attributes, for just playing yourself. Its roleplay, and time consuming roleplay at that.

In one corner, we have constantly having to hand the DM card of their 40 item checklist for taking a dump. In the other we have assumed competence and fair play.

I know which I have chosen since the 80's...

 

[5ekyu]

What is referenced as Milestone XP in HotDQ is wrong. That product was released prior to the DMG and presumably before the rules were set in stone. This may also be why HotDQ is widely criticized as being prone to errors and inconsistencies, especially as it relates to XP and encounter difficulty. As [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, HotDQ's method is actually Story-Based Advancement (DMG pg. 261). Which isn't what you use either, apparently.

i know that to you it is something really important as to what rule says what where and when and so on and that you somehow prove someone else is wrong as opposed to just having a different view, but, while you may want to believe in your heart of hearts that the book is wrong (as opposed to the books referring to two different things both as Milestone Xp as i observed, that doesn'ty change the fact that there are two different things referred to as milestone Xp still in the official products.

But really, i have to ask what does it matter?

i referenced milestone xp and other forms of xp from the 5e ruleset and made clear that they were different and so on so... why is it so important that you try and maintain this fiction of confusion?

Actually that is frankly rhetorical cuz i really dont care. it gets you going to do so and so thats fine.

enjoy!

 

[5ekyu]

From the general tone of your posts here, I think you'd quite like it.

I find it somewhat disappointing that an expectation that the players actually pay attention to detailed descriptions, and interact with said descriptions is referred to as 'pixel-bitching'. Some of the greatest D&D adventures ever written have very intricate, beautiful area descriptions, evoking well researched mythos, and creating some highly entertaining puzzles, and to dismiss them in such a way is simply crude.

If 'new skool' is to ignore that and just bash bash bash waiting for something to set off spidey-senses, then I'm proud to be old skool..

key thing is, its not. Thats just another example of assumption of the extreme that seems so very common in internet forums and so much more rare in actual ftf play or even ftf discussions.

go figure.

 

[iserith]

i know that to you it is something really important as to what rule says what where and when and so on and that you somehow prove someone else is wrong as opposed to just having a different view, but, while you may want to believe in your heart of hearts that the book is wrong (as opposed to the books referring to two different things both as Milestone Xp as i observed, that doesn'ty change the fact that there are two different things referred to as milestone Xp still in the official products.

But really, i have to ask what does it matter?

i referenced milestone xp and other forms of xp from the 5e ruleset and made clear that they were different and so on so... why is it so important that you try and maintain this fiction of confusion?

Actually that is frankly rhetorical cuz i really dont care. it gets you going to do so and so thats fine.

enjoy!

There is no confusion now that I cleared it up for you. We can move forward.

 

[5ekyu]

It isn't a "meta"-mechanic in the term metagaming is used, ie, info outside what would be available to your character in-game. The perception score is the EXACT opposite. It is the filter that establishes what info the character would glean, and is therefore passed onto the player. I describe scenes based on the Perception score of the character.

"Old Skool" eschews playing the character and its attributes, for just playing yourself. Its roleplay, and time consuming roleplay at that.

In one corner, we have constantly having to hand the DM card of their 40 item checklist for taking a dump. In the other we have assumed competence and fair play.

I know which I have chosen since the 80's...

Wait, if i read this correctly, three character walk into a bar...

One player might get different info on the patrons and their reactions cuz their character has a much higher insight than the other?

One player might get a much different description because their arcana is much higher and there are sublte runes or signils and such?

Another might get a much different description because their perception is much higher?

All that before each player goes into their monologue that describes their approach to the challenge of looking in the bar in hopes it passes the GM's auto-play checklist that ignores character stats?

What heresy?

Your transgressor!

Got an opening at your table?

 

[Charlaquin]

It isn't a "meta"-mechanic in the term metagaming is used, ie, info outside what would be available to your character in-game....

No, it’s not. It’s a meta mechanic in the actual meaning of the term meta, instead of the way certain DMs have co-opted it to shame players for outsmarting their screwjobs.

 

[redrick]

All that before each player goes into their monologue that describes their approach to the challenge of looking in the bar in hopes it passes the GM's auto-play checklist that ignores character stats?

Dude, the thing that is annoying is that you keep making these statements about "auto-play checklists" as if that is what is being done by GM's who ask players to describe their actions and intents and adjudicate actions based on that.

What I do, and what I think many DMs do, is not "an auto-play checklist." I am not a pre-programmed text adventure game with a series of conditions that lead to a series of outcomes. I am trying to imagine the game world and communicate that game world so that the players can imagine it as well. Within the context of that game world, I am trying to understand how the actions of the player characters will impact that game world, and I am trying to make sure that my understanding of it and the players' understanding of it gels.

If the player says something that I don't understand, or that clearly demonstrates that the player doesn't understand the world as described, I don't just move on and say, "Well, sucks for that player." I talk to the player. I clarify. I ask the player to clarify.

If a player says, "While we travel, I'm going to look out for ambushes," I don't, in my mind say, "Well, obvi, we know the character is doing that already. No change." I say, to the player, "Your character is generally looking out for ambushes — that's what your passive perception score is. However, if you'd like, you can choose to move at a slower pace to allow you to scout your surroundings more carefully and give you Advantage on your passive perception score for the trip. I'm also open to any other ideas you might have as to how to prepare for an ambush."

 

[5ekyu]

Dude, the thing that is annoying is that you keep making these statements about "auto-play checklists" as if that is what is being done by GM's who ask players to describe their actions and intents and adjudicate actions based on that.

What I do, and what I think many DMs do, is not "an auto-play checklist." I am not a pre-programmed text adventure game with a series of conditions that lead to a series of outcomes. I am trying to imagine the game world and communicate that game world so that the players can imagine it as well. Within the context of that game world, I am trying to understand how the actions of the player characters will impact that game world, and I am trying to make sure that my understanding of it and the players' understanding of it gels.

If the player says something that I don't understand, or that clearly demonstrates that the player doesn't understand the world as described, I don't just move on and say, "Well, sucks for that player." I talk to the player. I clarify. I ask the player to clarify.

If a player says, "While we travel, I'm going to look out for ambushes," I don't, in my mind say, "Well, obvi, we know the character is doing that already. No change." I say, to the player, "Your character is generally looking out for ambushes — that's what your passive perception score is. However, if you'd like, you can choose to move at a slower pace to allow you to scout your surroundings more carefully and give you Advantage on your passive perception score for the trip. I'm also open to any other ideas you might have as to how to prepare for an ambush."

RE the bold...

So in my very first post that initiated this thread i stated the following

"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."

So, i do not see any major gap between our positions on this subject - declarations vs trade-offs etc - some definition of differences between characters' actions as opposed to what the players state as say was illustrated in the original product text.

I am pretty sure either in there or a later post i even said i would have offered them some options for how they wanted to do this ambush spotting thing...

So no major daylight there, mo major gaps...

but that is a whole different animal than the selection you cut out of my response (somewhat tongue in cheek) to the sidebar discussion of the metagaming thing and auto-play checkist, right?

In that bold section you even reference the character perception score... which is a significant departure from cases where GMs claim they make the auto-play without reference to character stats, right?

You know that thing you just quoted from me... it was about the latter, not the former.

Did you get confused and shove those two topics together by accident or what?

Or when other Gms here say they do not consult character traits until after they do the auto-play determination, do you think they are lying?

Again, maybe you are right or wrong for getting annoyed at how i see the auto-play before stats thing, but the case of the ambush example you go into such detail in that statement of yours is not about that, right, its about the needs to get clear understanding and trade-offs into play understood between the player and GM.

You might as well have told me you are annoyed at how i talk about ice cream because [insert something about pizza.]

But hey, if it made sense to you, thats fine.

 

[Charlaquin]

Did you get confused and shove those two topics together by accident or what?

...

You might as well have told me you are annoyed at how i talk about ice cream because [insert something about pizza.]

But hey, if it made sense to you, thats fine.

Jesus Christ, would you stop being so condescending towards other people who use these forums? This is an incredibly rude way to talk to someone.

 

[redrick]

RE the bold...

So in my very first post that initiated this thread i stated the following

"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."

So, i do not see any major gap between our positions on this subject - declarations vs trade-offs etc - some definition of differences between characters' actions as opposed to what the players state as say was illustrated in the original product text.

I am pretty sure either in there or a later post i even said i would have offered them some options for how they wanted to do this ambush spotting thing...

So no major daylight there, mo major gaps...

but that is a whole different animal than the selection you cut out of my response (somewhat tongue in cheek) to the sidebar discussion of the metagaming thing and auto-play checkist, right?

In that bold section you even reference the character perception score... which is a significant departure from cases where GMs claim they make the auto-play without reference to character stats, right?

You know that thing you just quoted from me... it was about the latter, not the former.

Did you get confused and shove those two topics together by accident or what?

Or when other Gms here say they do not consult character traits until after they do the auto-play determination, do you think they are lying?

Again, maybe you are right or wrong for getting annoyed at how i see the auto-play before stats thing, but the case of the ambush example you go into such detail in that statement of yours is not about that, right, its about the needs to get clear understanding and trade-offs into play understood between the player and GM.

You might as well have told me you are annoyed at how i talk about ice cream because [insert something about pizza.]

But hey, if it made sense to you, thats fine.

This is a swift-moving thread and you're posting quite a bit.

On the topic of your original post, where you excerpted one line from an unnamed "published product," I think most people in this thread are in agreement that that is not the best presented advice to a GM. I mean, I don't know what the product is, and I only have your descriptions of the context, but I'm not sure that it's a great sentence. (I find things like this in adventures all the time. I was reading an adventure last night with a secret door mechanism in a floor. The adventure suggested that the GM roll for every 10 minutes characters spent to see if they "accidentally stepped on the mechanism," but included no description of the mechanism by which characters could actually actively find the mechanism. wtf.)

The bolded text you quoted is tangential. You can ignore it if it doesn't speak to you. It was in part responding to something else you said in a different post, because I didn't feel like multi-posting or multi-quoting.

Mainly, what I am talking about is your repeated dismissal of DM's who don't just call a check ON EVERYTHING as DM's who operating from an "auto-play checklist." That's not a sidebar. That is what all of these threads boil down to with you. You accuse DM's who adjudicate PC actions in any other way than calling for a skill check of being arbitrary, gotcha DMs.

I believe, though it's tough to track sometimes, that you were responding to [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION], who eschews skill checks in his game. I believe lanefan plays AD&D 1e. In his case, he would never reference the character perception score, because there is no perception score in AD&D. Lanefan also, by my reading, does expect his players to role-play their ability scores, so it's not that he ignores them. He just has a different way of interacting with them.

So, the daylight, the major gap between us, is that you keep disparaging a pretty broad swath of play approaches using terms like "auto-play checklist," "magic words," "gotcha," etc. That's not a valid characterization of any of the approaches I've seen described here.