D&D 5E Detect magic and Gargolye

[KarinsDad]

I suspsect its a "Hey not fair! I tried and you still screwed me!" type of response.

I've seen worse when a player wanted to search and the bad guys had arranged it so that a search could not result in the PC finding what he was looking for, so as DM, I hand waved it away instead of allowing a roll (because a perfect roll was not going to find anything). Boy, was that player super angry and I learned a bit of lesson that day. Instead of not allowing a roll, have the player explain exactly what he is looking for and exactly where and allow the roll. If he rolls great and there is nothing there, there is nothing there (i.e. he just looked for the wrong thing and/or in the wrong place).

 

[iserith]

You call it procedural. I call it logical.

I expect the DM to provide some manner of clue that indicates the statue is something of note. That is the DM saying that he or she has a face-down card on the table. Now, I might not pick up on that clue or I might and still fail to do anything about it to save my skin, but at least the DM gave me a shot at turning over that card. I don't think "I once had a problem with a statue, so maybe this one will try to kill me, too" is a valid clue. To me, that is procedural failure mitigation and I don't find it very engaging.

Except that you were the one stating that the player was most likely perceiving this as a gotcha.

My point is that maybe the player did perceive it that way, but it's unlikely that many players would because the clue was already given. In fact, the clue was given, and the player reacted to the clue (by casting Detect Magic), and then the player was disappointed that his reaction to the clue failed.

This does not mean that the DM should have given more clues (my point in your statement that the DM should have telegraphed gargoyles). It means that the player didn't like the fact that his reaction to the clue failed.

You are indicating that this was a face down card by the DM whereas I am stating that it is already a face up card.

My estimation, based only on the context provided, was that the DM had a face-down card in his or her back pocket instead of on the table (gargoyles posing as statues). The player was playing procedurally - if statue, then detect magic. (I'm wondering if the warlock has Eldritch Sight and relies on it heavily.) When the procedure failed to turn the hidden face-down card over and led to combat, then the player objected on the basis that detect magic should detect gargoyles. But really, there is an objection behind the objection in my view: The DM didn't show the face-down card on the table in the first place and this lends itself to the perception of the encounter as being a "gotcha." I gave several examples of ways the DM might have done this in my initial post in this thread.

Short of additional context to the contrary and based on my years as a DM and player, this is what I see as the heart of the matter.

 

[iserith]

I've seen worse when a player wanted to search and the bad guys had arranged it so that a search could not result in the PC finding what he was looking for, so as DM, I hand waved it away instead of allowing a roll (because a perfect roll was not going to find anything). Boy, was that player super angry and I learned a bit of lesson that day. Instead of not allowing a roll, have the player explain exactly what he is looking for and exactly where and allow the roll. If he rolls great and there is nothing there, there is nothing there (i.e. he just looked for the wrong thing and/or in the wrong place).

I would explain to such a player that the DM says whether an action succeeds, fails, or is uncertain (in which case there is a roll). An action does not in and of itself call for a roll.

 

[KarinsDad]

I would explain to such a player that the DM says whether an action succeeds, fails, or is uncertain (in which case there is a roll). An action does not in and of itself call for a roll.

Tell that to the super angry player who (as explained later to me by other players) was that he was mad not because he didn't find the trap, but because he didn't even get a roll (this was actually in a Champions super hero game where the NPCs had used desolidification to place a bomb inside the housing of the space craft's engine, so the PC searching had no special sense powers or searching ability that would have allowed him to find the bomb).

As per the OP's table, people can get really annoyed when they try to avoid/minimize a DM designed event and they still get caught in it. Rational explanations do not always work when someone is ticked off.

 

[KarinsDad]

I expect the DM to provide some manner of clue that indicates the statue is something of note.

And this is where we differ. As DM, I might indicate additional aspects of a statue, or I might not. My players do not have the expectation that I will do so.

The statue was described. That is sufficient. If the players suspect it will come to life, they have to do further investigation (or take steps to minimize that potential result). I do not go way out of my way to add an additional clue that the statue is something of note unless there is a good "in game" reason for doing so (I am playing a game and want to make it easy for my players is not an "in game" reason, it is an "out of game" reason).

 

[iserith]

Tell that to the super angry player who (as explained later to me by other players) was that he was mad not because he didn't find the trap, but because he didn't even get a roll (this was actually in a Champions super hero game where the NPCs had used desolidification to place a bomb inside the housing of the space craft's engine, so the PC searching had no special sense powers or searching ability that would have allowed him to find the bomb).

As per the OP's table, people can get really annoyed when they try to avoid/minimize a DM designed event and they still get caught in it. Rational explanations do not always work when someone is ticked off.

Perhaps the rules are different in Champions. Having never played it, I can't say. But in D&D 5e, I'd hold my ground on that point and kindly invite the player to leave if they can't handle it.

I otherwise agree that sometimes people can get ticked off, but I tend to find the event that triggers it is the proverbial straw. There are typically other issues at play.

 

[Beleriphon]

Perhaps the rules are different in Champions. Having never played it, I can't say. But in D&D 5e, I'd hold my ground on that point and kindly invite the player to leave if they can't handle it.

I otherwise agree that sometimes people can get ticked off, but I tend to find the event that triggers it is the proverbial straw. There are typically other issues at play.

Not so much in Champions, other than the resolution method used the ideas are largely the same. That said, its Champions and superheroes so its not like the Joker ever does anything that Batman can't figure on the first pass right? I suspect that more than aything there is a disconnect over expectations of what actions will be sucessful. On a search attempt that you don't want to succeed just go with the impossible roll, the player doesn't need to know that what they're asking for is impossible. Still, I'm often fond of "yes and..." answers. So, yes you find the macguffin but its going to explode in 1 minute and you need to evacuate the civilians before it does, or you fail but now the timer is much lower than if you had succeeded.

As for the original post, there's clearly a disconnect over what counts as magical for Detect Magic. So it doesn't work and now I know that gargoyles aren't magical, at least in so far as Detect Magic is concerned. That being said if I expected it to work as a player, and it doesn't without any warning then I'd be a bit grumpy on blowing a spell slot on something the character should probably know. As a DM I'd probably ask them what they're trying to find, and let them know that Detect Magic wont find what they're looking for if they specifically call out gargoyles or similar creatures. If they call out magic statues, well that's on them gargoyles aren't magical statues..

 

[The Crimson Binome]

On a search attempt that you don't want to succeed just go with the impossible roll, the player doesn't need to know that what they're asking for is impossible.

The player might be even more upset if a very good roll indicates that nothing was found.

Moreover, that goes against the basic dialogue of how the game is played - the DM is only supposed to call for a roll when the outcome is uncertain, and this is a case where the DM already knows the outcome with certainty.

 

[steeldragons]

I expect the DM to provide some manner of clue that indicates the statue is something of note.

Why though? By definition, gargoyles are indistinguishable from a normal statue...unless/until they choose to move. Why would you believe the DM is under ANY obligation to "telegraph" anything with clues?

...in ANY situation, as far as I"m concerned, but we'll deal with the one actually in the thread at hand and not make up hypotheticals.

My estimation, based only on the context provided, was that the DM had a face-down card in his or her back pocket instead of on the table (gargoyles posing as statues). The player was playing procedurally - if statue, then detect magic. (I'm wondering if the warlock has Eldritch Sight and relies on it heavily.) When the procedure failed to turn the hidden face-down card over and led to combat, then the player objected on the basis that detect magic should detect gargoyles. But really, there is an objection behind the objection in my view: The DM didn't show the face-down card on the table in the first place and this lends itself to the perception of the encounter as being a "gotcha." I gave several examples of ways the DM might have done this in my initial post in this thread.

Short of additional context to the contrary and based on my years as a DM and player, this is what I see as the heart of the matter.

This is a good deal of assumption on the subjects of 1) what this table's expectations and playstyle are, and 2) that they somehow align to yours.

I do not assume any "right" [as a player] or obligation [as a DM], nor even really any desire either way, to show or be shown "face down cards" [whatever that's supposed to mean]. It is my job, as DM, to know things the players don't. It's my job as a player to figure out what I can with the information I am given...and react accordingly. The players are not entitled ANY kind of "clue", beyond what is in the DM's descriptions of the surroundings/situation (and, arguably, their knowledge of the world at large), if the situation doesn't call for it.

If there are clues that the party picks up and tries to use to their advantage. Great. If they try and fail! Great.If it's a situation/scenario where clue-leaving/finding is a meaningful part of the game -like a mystery-based plot arc/ongoing quest/etc..., then great. If there's nothing there for them to find/pick up, GREAT!

But it's D&D. "Gotchas" happen - and I am not even going to begin to argue over the fact that "a PC ends up in combat...maybe takes some damage first?" is hardly something I would consider a "gotcha"...or the fact that "gotcha" is really the gargoyles whole shtick.

At the risk of putting too fine a blunt on it: My attitude to a player who would complain to this is: "Things don't always work out the way you think they should. Welcome to D&D...and life. Get over it, handle the situation you find yourself in [or don't and die], and move on...presumably, knowing better/having learned for next time that a detect magic spell isn't going to reveal a gargoyle (if not followed up on to find it won't work on elementals of any kind).

That, of course, is just according to all of my years as a DM and player which, I believe like many of us here, are comparable to yours.

 

[KarinsDad]

On a search attempt that you don't want to succeed just go with the impossible roll, the player doesn't need to know that what they're asking for is impossible.

Yup. Learned that lesson the hard way.

That being said if I expected it to work as a player, and it doesn't without any warning then I'd be a bit grumpy on blowing a spell slot on something the character should probably know.

Except that "detect magic vs. a statue" isn't one of those cases. For detect magic vs. a statue, the PC should not know. I've had both magical and non-magical (gargoyles and similar things) statues come to life in my game. If the player uses a spell slot, it doesn't mean he wasted it. He found out that this is not a magical statue (it might still be a gargoyle). At other times, the statue might register as magical, but it doesn't come to life. It does not mean in that case either that the PC wasted his spell, it means that the spell gave him information but his assumption as to what that information means might not be correct.