D&D 5E Ranger Stealth - If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.???

seebs · Feb 3, 2017

AaronOfBarbaria said:
I'll second what [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] said on the matter, and add this:

It doesn't actually matter if you are telling the player there are creatures nearby, as that knowledge doesn't change what actions are possible for the character to take. All actions remain as they were, either something the character could do with or without particular knowledge (i.e. "I creep up to the nearby corner, weapon drawn, and round the corner swiping wildly" is a thing you can do whether or not you actually know there is something somewhere nearby, and even knowing something is nearby doesn't mean it's around that corner), or something that is entirely outside the realm of what is possible for the character to do (i.e. "I charm the creature that is watching me" when the character doesn't even know where the creature in question is).

This doesn't make any sense to me.

If I tell a player that the sword they're holding is getting hot enough to burn them, they can drop it.

If I don't tell them, they can drop it anyway.

So clearly, it doesn't matter whether or not I tell them, as it doesn't change their available actions... But it does change the information they're using to make decisions. Which I would think of as mattering.

Bawylie · Feb 3, 2017

seebs said:
This doesn't make any sense to me.

If I tell a player that the sword they're holding is getting hot enough to burn them, they can drop it.

If I don't tell them, they can drop it anyway.

So clearly, it doesn't matter whether or not I tell them, as it doesn't change their available actions... But it does change the information they're using to make decisions. Which I would think of as mattering.

That example conflates in-universe phenomena with the mechanisms of play.

So does the milk example.

None of these analogies are particularly helpful or illustrative. Isn't it closer to say "the DM asked for a Wisdom (perception) check, so the player drops their sword (or refuses to drink either glass of milk) because it's clearly the case that the DM wouldn't call for that check unless the sword were getting hot (or one glass of milk was bad)"?

The player in these cases is choosing to rely on the use of the game mechanics, rather than (or perhaps in addition to) the information given by the DM, to make assumptions about the in-game scenario.

Why?

-Brad
(Edited for spelling)

AaronOfBarbaria · Feb 3, 2017

seebs said:
This doesn't make any sense to me.

As [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] pointed out, that's because while I'm talking about the player's knowledge not being relevant in determining the character's course of action, you and [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] are acting as if I'm talking about the character's knowledge not being relevant, which I am not because that is obviously nonsensical.

Ovinomancer · Feb 3, 2017

Bawylie said:
It's true in principle and in practice.

Far more common is a scouting scenario wherein the the stealthy adventurer chooses to employ stealth when they KNOW an observer is present.

Very, very few players opt for "stealth all the time" because the travel pace is a terribly expensive cost for a relatively modest benefit.

You seem to have been caught up in a logic problem: "When would DM ask for a stealth check if nothing were there to sneak by?" And extrapolated that because you feel that would never happen, the existence of a stealth check mandates the existence of an observer. It does not.

-Brad

I disagree strongly that players engage in stealth only when they KNOW an observer is present. They engage in stealth when they THINK an observer MAY be present. If you do not ask for a check, because, as you note, you know if the action is uncertain or not, then your players can assume that one of two situations occurred because of their sneaking: no one is present to see them or it doesn't matter how well they roll, they are detected. You've narrowed the results down to a binary situation, that the player is now choosing further actions toward.

I rather think that the way you run is has slightly more going on, as in, the player declares sneaking, you determine the uncertainty and ask for a roll or not, but, either way, you narrate the results conclusively. As in, "I sneak", you don't ask for a roll, the result is 'You creep across the room and do whatever it is you want to, no one attacks and you see no one," or "you creep across the room, but an Orc sees you and cries out! Roll initiative!" And, at that point, I'm perfectly fine with the way you run it. But not everyone does it this way, they include intermediate steps. I've mostly stopped the intermediate things, preferring to get to a meaningful action with consequences, but I have previously run in other circumstances, where a declaration of sneaking can be done and resolved without immediate consequence. If your style of running is to not have stakes on a roll, as in sneaking and succeeding doesn't result in a completed action, just an intermediate point, then asking for random rolls is useful as it encourages more player involvement in the scene.

seebs · Feb 3, 2017

AaronOfBarbaria said:
As [MENTION=6776133]Bawylie[/MENTION] pointed out, that's because while I'm talking about the player's knowledge not being relevant in determining the character's course of action, you and [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] are acting as if I'm talking about the character's knowledge not being relevant, which I am not because that is obviously nonsensical.

The context was someone advocating that you should never make someone roll unless there's an observer. In the context of such a policy, you've given the player information, and humans are incredibly bad at accurately evaluating how they would behave without a piece of information.

This has been fairly well studied in other contexts, and I see no reason it wouldn't apply to D&D as well. You're changing the information the player has, that's going to have effects.

Ovinomancer · Feb 3, 2017

AaronOfBarbaria said:
I don't find it to be even remotely like that.
Actually, I come at it from the other side - the information isn't necessary in order to arrive at the choice, so worrying about whether or not the player has the information is attempting to police the thoughts of the player, rather than police whether or not the character is doing something they shouldn't be able to.

It is a classic case of the phenomena by which trying to avoid metagaming results in metagaming more often than not, in my experience, because it only raises any warning flags to people that are concerned with the idea of "metagaming" - because they are on the watch for the character using information the character doesn't have, they completely disregard whether or not the character's actions actually require any particular knowledge, and end up forcing the character's actions to be determined explicitly by what the player knows.

For example, to try and clarify because I know you have trouble understanding me, let's look at two scenarios:

Scenario A) Jim, who has never played D&D or any other table-top RPG at all before tonight, is playing Regdar the fighter. As he is cautiously proceeding into a dungeon, he comes to a side hall. Jim knows from the brief spiel given to him about what kind of stuff happens in a D&D game, and how he can describe doing whatever he wants and the DM will tell him what rolls are needed if any, that danger could lurk around the corner. So he says "Regdar creeps up on the corner, hugging close to the wall with his great sword gripped in both hands. He rounds the corner swinging the sword, swiping at the monster he assumes to be there."

Scenario B) George, who has played at least a few campaigns of D&D, is playing Regdar the fighter. He is also cautiously proceeding into a dungeon, and comes to a side hall. George's DM calls for a stealth check, which George makes and reports the result of. He then says "Regdar creeps up on the corner, hugging close to the wall with his great sword gripped in both hands. He rounds the corner swinging the sword, swiping at the monster he assumes to be there."

If Scenario A is acceptable, with Jim having no idea whether a stealth check has been made in secret by the DM or has not been made at all, and Scenario B isn't acceptable specifically because George has the knowledge that there was some reason for a stealth check, then is it not player information the character doesn't possess which is determining the character's action (or, to be more accurate, that the character can't do that particular action)?

You do realize that Scenario B also allows for random checks, and works just as well, and is exactly the kind of thing that people are talking about encouraging with the random checks, right?

AaronOfBarbaria · Feb 3, 2017

seebs said:
The context was someone advocating that you should never make someone roll unless there's an observer.

Well, never make a roll unless it resolves uncertainty, but close enough I guess.

seebs said:
In the context of such a policy, you've given the player information, and humans are incredibly bad at accurately evaluating how they would behave without a piece of information.

This has been fairly well studied in other contexts, and I see no reason it wouldn't apply to D&D as well. You're changing the information the player has, that's going to have effects.

I'm not disputing that the player knowing the roll actually matters will have some effect - I disputing that those effects are inherently negative, or even relevant, to the game-play experience.

AaronOfBarbaria · Feb 3, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
You do realize that Scenario B also allows for random checks, and works just as well, and is exactly the kind of thing that people are talking about encouraging with the random checks, right?

Unless that is you agreeing with me that only rolling when it actually matters doesn't negatively affect game-play, but does save time because it doesn't involve prompting for, making, and reporting as many die rolls, I'm entirely lost as to the relevance of your question.

Ovinomancer · Feb 3, 2017

Bawylie said:
That example conflates in-universe phenomena with the mechanisms of play.

Information is information, in game or out. It's all used to reach decisions by the player.

Further, asking for a Wisdom save comes with some built in obfuscation -- there are lots of reasons for a Wisdom save. Asking for a Stealth check has little obfuscation -- the purpose is almost always the same and known to the player at the time of asking.

Bawylie · Feb 3, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
Information is information, in game or out. It's all used to reach decisions by the player.

Further, asking for a Wisdom save comes with some built in obfuscation -- there are lots of reasons for a Wisdom save. Asking for a Stealth check has little obfuscation -- the purpose is almost always the same and known to the player at the time of asking.

It's assumptions like those that are causing the metagame issues you're complaining about.

You've created the problem that the random useless checks are intended to solve. And then said that others should employ your solution because of your problem.

No, thank you anyway.

-Brad

D&D 5E Ranger Stealth - If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.???

seebs

Adventurer

Bawylie

A very OK person

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

seebs

Adventurer

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer

AaronOfBarbaria

Adventurer

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!

Bawylie

A very OK person

Similar Threads