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 coming! 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
What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
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="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7497239" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Asking for an approach to an obviously active task, sure. I do that to, from everything from search to diplomacy. But what is actually at contention here is not the obviously active tasks. I don't think anyone is actually asserting that it is a commonly used approach for the DM to demand search checks, and then proceed to describe to the player how they search the room, or to demand climb checks and proceed to tell the player what they climbed, or to demand bluff checks and proceed to explain to the player the lie that they just told to the NPC. I don't think that sort of thing happens often enough to even be a thing.</p><p></p><p>Rather what is at contention is the tasks that are of a long ongoing nature, which are not played out in the game moment by moment, or which are obviously passive or obviously reactive in nature. For those tasks, many of which are internal mental tasks of the character, it's not at all clear what asking for an approach actually adds to the game, and on the contrary demanding the player describe in detail long on going tasks that aren't to be played out moment to moment (or demanding that they be played out moment by moment) or demanding a player describe a stated approach to recalling a fact that the player doesn't themselves know that they don't have, or demanding an approach to describing how the character receives a revelatory insight the player doesn't know, is both pixel bitching and seems to undermine the purpose of having skills like that in the first place.</p><p></p><p>I've long held the unpopular opinion that mental skills of the PC aren't the same as the physical skills, and while it's perfectly easy to allow an unhealthy quadriplegic to play a physically adept character, it's not really wholly possible to allow a player with some mental or social challenge to play a mentally or socially adept player simply because you can't remove the mind of the player from the game universe. But this goes even further than I've been willing to go by taking the very skills intended to make non-perceptive players into perceptive ones and making them things that require player perceptiveness to even get an opportunity to work. When you say, "The DM is not even allowed to ask for a perceptive ability check but the PC must first specify what they are trying to perceive (the goal) and describe how they accomplish that goal", then you are making perceptive character skills only work for players that are themselves informed and perceptive. I don't feel that's the intention, and if it really is, I think it would come as a surprise to many 5e participants.</p><p></p><p>The rest of your statements I can agree with rather strongly as true statements, but again only if we are talking about actually active 'well behaved' tasks. I think they are nonsensical though with respect to the things actually in question. I don't need to know the true goal of a player's intent at studying an object to find something worth remarking on, and a player most certainly can't be expected to know what intent he should have in studying an object to find something worth remarking on. If he already knows what it is exactly he's looking for from some other means, at best he can just get confirmation. Sure, for a search check I'm going to need to know things like "Did you touch it?", "Are you willing to lift or move it?" and so forth, and for that sort of thing we do need propositions that take the form of an action. But just seeing something? Just trying to understand a language spoken to you? Or just trying to understand the significance of a mural you see on the wall and needing to call the right skill to use and match it to its significance? Then yes, that very much is a "Mother may I?" sort of thing. </p><p></p><p>Player: May I understand what my character sees yet?</p><p>DM: No, you may not.</p><p>Player: If I say 'Religion' may I understand then.</p><p>DM: No, you didn't say the magic word.</p><p>Player: Is Arcane the magic word?</p><p>DM: No it is not.</p><p>Player: Is Investigate the magic word?</p><p>DM: No, it isn't that either.</p><p>Player: What about 'history'?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed. I think that several different potential processes of play have been outlined here, and I agree that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] seems to have adopted additional non-rule based processes of play to compensate for his hard-nosed insistence on the letter of the law - telegraphing to the players for example what things that they should call out that they are paying attention to. Without watching his process of play, I can't really speak to how well that would work out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7497239, member: 4937"] Asking for an approach to an obviously active task, sure. I do that to, from everything from search to diplomacy. But what is actually at contention here is not the obviously active tasks. I don't think anyone is actually asserting that it is a commonly used approach for the DM to demand search checks, and then proceed to describe to the player how they search the room, or to demand climb checks and proceed to tell the player what they climbed, or to demand bluff checks and proceed to explain to the player the lie that they just told to the NPC. I don't think that sort of thing happens often enough to even be a thing. Rather what is at contention is the tasks that are of a long ongoing nature, which are not played out in the game moment by moment, or which are obviously passive or obviously reactive in nature. For those tasks, many of which are internal mental tasks of the character, it's not at all clear what asking for an approach actually adds to the game, and on the contrary demanding the player describe in detail long on going tasks that aren't to be played out moment to moment (or demanding that they be played out moment by moment) or demanding a player describe a stated approach to recalling a fact that the player doesn't themselves know that they don't have, or demanding an approach to describing how the character receives a revelatory insight the player doesn't know, is both pixel bitching and seems to undermine the purpose of having skills like that in the first place. I've long held the unpopular opinion that mental skills of the PC aren't the same as the physical skills, and while it's perfectly easy to allow an unhealthy quadriplegic to play a physically adept character, it's not really wholly possible to allow a player with some mental or social challenge to play a mentally or socially adept player simply because you can't remove the mind of the player from the game universe. But this goes even further than I've been willing to go by taking the very skills intended to make non-perceptive players into perceptive ones and making them things that require player perceptiveness to even get an opportunity to work. When you say, "The DM is not even allowed to ask for a perceptive ability check but the PC must first specify what they are trying to perceive (the goal) and describe how they accomplish that goal", then you are making perceptive character skills only work for players that are themselves informed and perceptive. I don't feel that's the intention, and if it really is, I think it would come as a surprise to many 5e participants. The rest of your statements I can agree with rather strongly as true statements, but again only if we are talking about actually active 'well behaved' tasks. I think they are nonsensical though with respect to the things actually in question. I don't need to know the true goal of a player's intent at studying an object to find something worth remarking on, and a player most certainly can't be expected to know what intent he should have in studying an object to find something worth remarking on. If he already knows what it is exactly he's looking for from some other means, at best he can just get confirmation. Sure, for a search check I'm going to need to know things like "Did you touch it?", "Are you willing to lift or move it?" and so forth, and for that sort of thing we do need propositions that take the form of an action. But just seeing something? Just trying to understand a language spoken to you? Or just trying to understand the significance of a mural you see on the wall and needing to call the right skill to use and match it to its significance? Then yes, that very much is a "Mother may I?" sort of thing. Player: May I understand what my character sees yet? DM: No, you may not. Player: If I say 'Religion' may I understand then. DM: No, you didn't say the magic word. Player: Is Arcane the magic word? DM: No it is not. Player: Is Investigate the magic word? DM: No, it isn't that either. Player: What about 'history'? Agreed. I think that several different potential processes of play have been outlined here, and I agree that [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] seems to have adopted additional non-rule based processes of play to compensate for his hard-nosed insistence on the letter of the law - telegraphing to the players for example what things that they should call out that they are paying attention to. Without watching his process of play, I can't really speak to how well that would work out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
What DM flaw has caused you to actually leave a game?
Top