Just because it seems a little mismatched doesn't mean that it cant have been said. Not everyone is articulate all the time, sometimes people can get brain freeze.
If an NPC is telling the truth, what's the Insight DC to know they're telling the truth?
- Thread starter S'mon
- Start date
Just because it seems a little mismatched doesn't mean that it cant have been said. Not everyone is articulate all the time, sometimes people can get brain freeze.
I'm not saying it's impossible as an event at a gaming table! But I find it easy to imagine that in a lot of contexts, as a GM, that would not give me enough information to adjudicate it. I'd have to ask the player to elaborate.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
No worries. I was attempting to point out, with a bit of levity, that the frustration with having to constantly defend one's self against the same tired points over and over again runs both ways here. In hindsight, I too came off more bristly than I intended to, and I apologize for that.
I think it's important to take into account the context surrounding Isereth's quoting of the passages in question. Isereth is a firm advocate of trying the rules as written first before altering anything, so that one knows how the designers intended the game to be played, and is better equipped to depart from that intent with specific intent. He's not saying "you're doing it wrong, look, here's where the book says so!" He's saying, "here's where D&D 5e tells you how the designers intended play to work. Don't knock it till you've tried it." And I've seen a few commenters say that this style isn't anything new, they played with DMs who did it that way in the 80s, and it wasn't for them. But D&D 5e wasn't out in the 80s. If you haven't tried running D&D 5e that way, you should really give it a shot before you judge it too harshly. It might work out better than you expect it to.
Yes. "Listen" is a approach and "for an ambush beyond the door" is a goal. I can also tell from "I want to roll perception" that the player thinks their Proficiency in the Perception might be applicable, if there is uncertainty in the result of listening to try to determine if there is an ambush behind the door.
No. "See if I notice an ambush behind the door" is a goal, but no clear approach is indicated in this statement. What does your character do to try to notice an ambush behind the door?
No. "See if we can get the drop on them" is a goal, but no clear approach is indicated. I do, however, get the sense that the player is anticipating a potential ambush, and since they seem to think their Proficiency in the Perception skill will be relevant if their action has an uncertain outcome, I'm guessing that "see if we can get the drop on them" isn't really their immediate goal, but a planned goal for a potential future action after they have confirmed or denied their suspicion of an ambush.
"I want to use my senses" is an approach and "detect if there is an ambush up ahead" is a goal, so I do technically have what I need to adjudicate that action. However, in this case I would clarify first, because I have a feeling the player probably doesn't want to taste the door. Probably something like, "Ok, I'm hearing that you want to determine if there is an ambush ahead, and that you want to use your senses to do so. By 'senses', you mean hearing, smell, touch, and taste?"
Only if you consider "roll perception" to be an approach. It's not. Rolling perception is something the player does to resolve uncertainty in the outcome of the character's action. In order to determine whether or not it is appropriate for the player to roll perception, I need to know what the character is doing that might have an uncertain outcome.
Yes, we are indeed talking about different kinds of certainty here. Of course the players shouldn't be certain they can walk through a dungeon and catch every trap, or that the Duke is behind everything. They should, however, be certain of their immediate environment, their own capabilities, and the likely outcomes of their actions. They should be able to reasonably evaluate their chances of success and risks of failure, so that they can be confident in their decisions. They should be able to trust that the world responds to their actions in a logical and consistent manner.
See, I wouldn't like that. That would undermine my confidence in the consistency of the world. If your players skills and abilities don't consistently behave the same way - if sometimes they can heal torn souls with Channel Divinity and other times they can't - then it's no surprise that they don't wan to describe what their character is actually doing in the world to try to figure out if there are monsters waiting to ambush them. They aren't certain how the world will respond to that action, because sometimes it works one way and sometimes it works another. It's only natural that they would feel the d20 is more reliable than their own sense of what might happen in response to their characters' actions. Which is saying something considering how swingy d20s are.
But action is an English word. "Skill check" is just rules jargon. You're not using a natural-language meaning of a word that also has a specific rules meaning, you're using a rules term to mean something other than what the rules system it comes from says it means.
But your use of "skill check" as interchangeable with the rules term "action" is causing actual confusion. Using the English definition of "action" to describe something that is an action by the english definition but is not an action as defined by the rules of D&D is not.
Just so we're clear, are you saying that people who don't think a roll should be called for to determine whether or not a character who is not lying is lying should not participate in this discussion?
You gave an alternative style of the result of failing on a check that you said you wouldn't allow to fail. Do you not see why that might be confusing?
It's an expression. "A hill to die on" is a cause you defend in spite of significant resistance. Historically, it carries connotations of defending a point with no real tactical value. I'm saying that this point you've chosen to defend to the death doesn't seem to me like a point worth dying for.
Except that coca-cola has nothing to do with mustard on fries. Your alternative style of resolving the action in the example is directly related to the action in the example. You can say "but I would allow wiping the handle to automatically succeed!" until you're blue in the face, but as long as you keep following it up with, "but if we did agree to roll for it, this is what failure should have looked like," the first part doesn't really mean anything. A better analogy would be that if someone used mustard on fries as an example of a bad combination of foods, and you said, "obviously I would put catchup on my fries, but if someone did put mustard on their fries, they should go with dijon." Which kind of mustard is least disgusting on fries was never a point of contention, why are you bringing it up? The whole point was that putting mustard on fries is obviously gross. But the fact that you keep saying "yeah, it's gross, but if you put mustard on fries, you should use dijon!" makes me question if you really do think mustard on fries is gross. I know you keep saying it, but you sure seem insistent that dijon is better than yellow on fries. Almost like you're speaking from experience.
Well, the designers did say - repeatedly - that 5e would enable people to enjoy their D&D experience. That is, part of the pitch was that it was in many ways not a new game.
So if people have a certain way they were used to doing things in, say, 3E, then it's not unreasonable to expect 5e to support that also.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Sure. You’re more than welcome to run 5e the way you ran 3e. I’ve heard plenty of people who do, who attest that it works just fine and I believe them. I also agree with Iserith that it works better if you run it the way it says to run it. You may disagree, and that’s perfectly fine, have fun with the game the way you like to run it. But when people complain of problems running the game that I do not experience when I run the game, I don’t think it’s unfair to say, “I run the game this way, as per the advice in this part of the book, and this issue does not occur for me when I do so.”
EDIT: Also, things not working as advertised is nothing new. 5e is absolutely not the game they sold it as early in the playtest process. It’s a very good game, but it’s not the “fully modular, build your own edition” that they sold many of us on.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Ok, fair point. I was scanning for the pattern I use [approach] to accomplish [goal], so in each case Perception sounded like the approach, and I read, for example, "listen for an ambush beyond the door" as a goal. If he had just said, "I listen for an ambush beyond the door" I can see that being a goal and an approach.
However, I will say that in each case the approach is awfully vague. Especially "use my senses".
I think in many ways this comes back to a recurring theme in this thread: one side keeps assuming a model of "listen randomly at every door and check it for traps" or "check every NPC to see if they are lying" of play. And if that's the case, then yeah it gets a little unwieldy to describe approach in detail every time, and it also would feel like mere embellishment...a charge Oofta, for example, keep leveling.
But if the players know they don't have to listen at every door, then when they get to the door they do suspect they really need to listen to, they might have a more specific approach. Silly example, but imagine there are 4 doors: you have every reason to believe that behind 3 of them are sleeping giants, and behind the 4th is the princess you are trying to rescue. Now the players can say, "Ok, everybody be really quiet...I'm going to listen for deep breathing behind the doors" or maybe "I'm going to get down at the bottom of the door and take a deep whiff and see if I can catch a trace of that perfume we found."
Whether or not the DM calls for a Perception check depends on whether he thinks there's uncertainty. If the doors are thick and lead to hallways, at the end of which are sleeping giants, maybe he/she calls for a roll. If they are literally sleeping right beyond the doors, maybe he doesn't. And if one of the rooms is actually empty, maybe he/she just says no. (Players of such a DM would already know that not rolling doesn't mean anything one way or the other.)
As for "using my senses to get the drop on enemies", I would say that I could see one's senses being useful in achieving this goal, but I would want a lot more specificity in the approach.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I think, in the interest of showing good faith to the critics of the goal and approach DMing style, it’s important that we not brush past this. Many of us who advocate for the goal and approach style have been quite insistent that detailed description is not necessary, as long as a goal and an approach are clearly stated. And this action does, strictly speaking, meet those criteria (though arguably there is some interpretation required on the DM’s part to translate “get the drop on them” to “find out if there’s anyone there, so that we can get the drop on them if there is.”) So here we can clearly see that some degree of specificity in the approach is required. Now, different DMs will have different thresholds for how much specificity they expect, but I think most of us would agree that “use my senses” is a little too vague to do anything with. Perhaps it’s worth exploring how we might handle a player declaring a vague approach like this.
I’ve commented on this a bit already, but to elaborate on my previous post, my strategy is to clearly say to the player what I do understand (or think I understand) from their declaration, what I’m still not understanding, and ask for elaboration. “I’m hearing that you want to [blank]” (and I think that part is very important), “but I need to know [blank].” In this specific case, “I’m hearing that you want to use your senses to find out if there might be an ambush waiting on the other side, but I’m not sure what senses you plan to use. I assume listening carefully, are you also sniffing around, touching the door, licking the handle...?”
Oofta
Legend
Has anyone been posting to here clamoring for advice on how to handle skill checks because it sucks? Because I haven't seen it.
Because whether you meant it or not what you said comes off as, "when you get tired of your boring game come ask me and I'll show you the right way to do it".
We all play slightly different games. Heck, I probably disagree with the majority of people on the OP's topic. That doesn't mean they're wrong or I'm right, I just share how I run my game and why.
P.S. I find "the rulz say to run it this way" particularly annoying. It's two lines in the PHB of general guidance. The PHB is not a holy text. It was not vetted by thousands of lawyers over decades to be interpreted as a legal document.
I can quote the DMG (page 240 BTW) just like @iserith. For example
Take into account each player's roleplaying style, and
try not to favor one style over another. For example,
Allison might be comfortable speaking in an accent and
adopting her character's mannerisms, but Paul feels
self-conscious when trying to act and prefers to describe
his character's attitude and actions. Neither style is
better than the other.
try not to favor one style over another. For example,
Allison might be comfortable speaking in an accent and
adopting her character's mannerisms, but Paul feels
self-conscious when trying to act and prefers to describe
his character's attitude and actions. Neither style is
better than the other.
So if one person is more comfortable saying "I make an insight check" vs well, I'm not exactly sure what. "I study them closely"?
Oofta
Legend
And what exactly is gained when you suspect someone might be on the other side of the door that is not covered under "I make a perception check to see if there's anything?" I might clarify in some cases along the lines of "Do you put your ear to the door?" if it matters or I just want to set a mood that's a little paranoid. Because if they don't hear an ambush, they might hear a party. Do you not tell them about the party? Because after all that's not what they were seeking. If the room reeks of alcohol are you going to tell them they don't smell it because they didn't mention they were smelling?
To me the PC is concentrating with all their senses, all the time, every time they make a perception check (or when I'm using passives). No need to spell it out. It's not like I plug my nose and close my eyes while listening at a door. If you and your players prefer a descriptive approach, more power to you. It just feels like an artificial overly-wordy way of saying what you want to do. We use acronyms, shortcuts and emojis all the time in real life in my game that doesn't have to stop at the game table.
But I've also been accused of running games where everyone asks for a perception check every 5 feet or an insight check after every sentence. So how about we just stop that, okay?
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Yeah, agree with all of the above.
Similar Threads
- Poll
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Recent & Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
