D&D 5E Detect magic and Gargolye

[KarinsDad]

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.

Yeah, that doesn't always work either. I was a guest DM for this group that I had just recently joined when the main DM got hit with too much of "real life" in order to find the time to prep for the game. So I was temporarily subbing in and couldn't invite players to leave.

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.

True in this case.

 

[iserith]

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.

A "gotcha" is an example of false challenge. Without any clues that the players can interpret that will allow them to make meaningful decisions to change their fate, getting jumped by a monster or hit by a trap is essentially a random event. What makes a challenge satisfying in my view is when the players' decisions matter enough to have some control over the outcome of the situation. And in order to give them the context to make those decisions, a DM telegraphs - tip his or her hand. This is part and parcel to creating satisfying challenges as I see it. It also avoids what I call "procedural" play where players are just engaging in procedures they've created to mitigate failure: search every room/door/chest/statue for traps, search every wall for secret doors, assume every NPC is lying, etc. I prefer that the players not do this, so I telegraph threats, secret doors, and other hidden things. Sometimes they figure it out and prevail; other times they do not. But it removes the perception of a situation being a "gotcha." It also has the side effect of improving the DM's descriptions and storytelling (telegraphing is foreshadowing), plus it makes exploration scenes more engaging in my experience.

I gave an example upthread of the PCs hearing a rumor of "the wizard's tower being guarded by demons of rock and stone." Later on as they are exploring the dungeon, they come across these horned, clawed, winged statues. If they were paying attention and remember what they heard, they might then believe that these could be the "demons" they heard about and act accordingly. It is a very satisfying feeling as a player to put two and two together like this and gain an edge. If they do not remember, dismissed the rumor as nonsense, or whatever, then they get jumped by the gargoyles. This is not a "gotcha" because the DM telegraphed the threat and gave them a fair opportunity to do something about it. The PCs just didn't make the decisions necessary to avoid their fate. If the DM doesn't telegraph, the players just have to make sure to include "search/smash/poke from a distance every statue" on their procedural checklist.

Maybe the OP did telegraph the potential threat and the player totally botched the job. But given the reaction, I think there's more to the objection than whether or not an elemental glows when detect magic is cast.

Here is some additional reading on the subject if you're interested. I don't always agree with the AngryGM, but here he is spot on. (Here's another read.)

 

[steeldragons]

And, again, I will simply disagree with pretty much all of this. It is "in your view" and "from your experience" and using your definitions, coined terms, and expectations of what "good" players and "good" DMs do. And basically, your default position is saying, "tell the players everything they need to know and just lay out/give them what they want/need to "win" because that will be, to them, a satisfying experience."

That is so very far from my concept and experiences of what "satisfying" D&D is...on either side of the screen.

If you play, as you claim, with experienced players and gave them that "guarded by demons of rock" line, and they didn't look at each other sidelong and say "Gargoyles" in a matter-of-fact tone, then I would be very surprised. If you gave them that and then said they're walking up on some statues (forget even having to describe the statues, just the word "statue") and they didn't off load everything they had into that room, or enter on high alert with no chance for a surprise round, then they're just not paying attention.

Tell me, where in there are the 'meaningful choices" being made to shape the situation/game/world? You laid it out for me that there would be gargoyles (via your expert "telegraphing"). Then there were gargoyles. We fought them and won. Boy howdy, do I feel "satisfied." That was some tense game play right there.

We'll just agree to disagree on this. But thanks for the links.

 

[Gadget]

I don't see how it's meta-gaming to cast "Detect Magic" to try and discover if what look like statues are really magical creatures that will attack and try to eat you. That looks completely reasonable from an in-character point of view.

I didn't imply that it necessarily was in this case, but was responding to previous posts in the thread that pointed out problems that could arise with the much more liberal interpretation of 'Detect Magic'. Furthermore, I made note of how some players might feel cheated if the DM is not upfront about these sort of rulings, but hey, don't let quoting me out of context get in the way of making a flippant remark.

Also one could very easily make the argument that a reasonable 'in-character view' would know the limitations of the spell in use, and not expect it to detect creatures that naturally resemble statues. This is where DM communication becomes very important.

 

[iserith]

"tell the players everything they need to know and just lay out/give them what they want/need to "win" because that will be, to them, a satisfying experience."

Of course, that's not what I'm saying at all. I said "tipping your hand," not "shoving your cards in their face."

If you play, as you claim, with experienced players and gave them that "guarded by demons of rock" line, and they didn't look at each other sidelong and say "Gargoyles" in a matter-of-fact tone, then I would be very surprised. If you gave them that and then said they're walking up on some statues (forget even having to describe the statues, just the word "statue") and they didn't off load everything they had into that room, or enter on high alert with no chance for a surprise round, then they're just not paying attention.

Tell me, where in there are the 'meaningful choices" being made to shape the situation/game/world? You laid it out for me that there would be gargoyles (via your expert "telegraphing"). Then there were gargoyles. We fought them and won. Boy howdy, do I feel "satisfied." That was some tense game play right there.

Good! You see, challenge and difficulty aren't the same thing. The gargoyles are still a challenge; however, because the players were paying attention (and perhaps because they have some experience with the game), they were able to make decisions that reduced the difficulty. Score one for the players for making good decisions. Making good decisions is satisfying to players in my experience.

We'll just agree to disagree on this. But thanks for the links.

You're welcome.

 

[the Jester]

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

The clue is "There's a statue there". The rest is up to the pcs.

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.

Let's use a different monster as an example. Would you give the pcs some sort of clue when they enter a room with piercers on the ceiling? A clue beyond "there are stalactites", that is? Because the monsters (in both cases!) explicitly have an ability to enable them to be ambush predators.

I guess the bottom line is that (it appears to me, anyway) you believe in a lot more heavy-handed and explicit clue delivery than I do. It's not up to me, as DM, to ensure that the pcs pick up on stuff. Heck, often, they won't have a clue at all until such a monster strikes (gelatinous cubes!). When there are statues, suits of armor, whatever like that, it's up to the pcs to assess them. It's not on me to forewarn them.

Obviously, this is a playstyle difference; not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying your philosophy on clues is far too "give 'em the info! Hint hint!" for my style.

 

[iserith]

The clue is "There's a statue there". The rest is up to the pcs.

And the PCs should be automatically suspicious of statues because it's on the checklist of things to be wary about, right?

Let's use a different monster as an example. Would you give the pcs some sort of clue when they enter a room with piercers on the ceiling? A clue beyond "there are stalactites", that is? Because the monsters (in both cases!) explicitly have an ability to enable them to be ambush predators.

"The cavern you enter has a ceiling beyond the range of your lantern's light. Vermin scurry away from the corpse of a fellow adventurer with a gaping hole in her helmet. Nearby is a skeleton still holding a shield that was pierced through. What do you do?"

I guess the bottom line is that (it appears to me, anyway) you believe in a lot more heavy-handed and explicit clue delivery than I do. It's not up to me, as DM, to ensure that the pcs pick up on stuff. Heck, often, they won't have a clue at all until such a monster strikes (gelatinous cubes!). When there are statues, suits of armor, whatever like that, it's up to the pcs to assess them. It's not on me to forewarn them.

Obviously, this is a playstyle difference; not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying your philosophy on clues is far too "give 'em the info! Hint hint!" for my style.

Check out those links I posted upthread. It's worth a read.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And the PCs should be automatically suspicious of statues because it's on the checklist of things to be wary about, right?

There are two reasons why the PCs should be automatically suspicious:

1) They're experienced players, and they're meta-gaming. They expect that the DM will try to catch them off-guard, and that it's their job as players to be as paranoid as possible.
2) A player is playing a character who is an experienced adventurer, and the character is prone to paranoia as a personality quirk. Constant vigilance! It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you!

Of these two possibilities, the first one is the player's fault. Players shouldn't act on knowledge that their characters don't have, and the DM should point this out if they forget. The second option can be fun, but there's no reason why it should take up an inordinate amount of time to narrate that the character performs the standard set of trap detection techniques and finds nothing.

The only time where it might really be an issue is if the characters have an in-game reason to suspect something, and the outcome of a standard search technique is uncertain because there actually is something hidden without any clues to indicate it. If the characters have encountered gargoyles (or piercers, or mimics, etc) in the past, so they're always on the lookout in the future, and there are more gargoyles/piercers/mimics that they might find again if they remain paranoid about it.

The obvious solution, then, is for the DM to not re-use the same gimmick and expect it to work again. Once the players know what to look for, there's no point in that monster ever showing up again, because it isn't going to surprise anyone. And if that monster does have reason to show up again, the DM can cut to the chase and just tell the players about it outright, since it is knowledge that their characters would be able to figure out. "The ceiling of this cavern is beyond the reach of your light; based on past experiences, you know that you're in danger from piercers."

 

[iserith]

There are two reasons why the PCs should be automatically suspicious:

1) They're experienced players, and they're meta-gaming. They expect that the DM will try to catch them off-guard, and that it's their job as players to be as paranoid as possible.
2) A player is playing a character who is an experienced adventurer, and the character is prone to paranoia as a personality quirk. Constant vigilance! It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you!

Of these two possibilities, the first one is the player's fault. Players shouldn't act on knowledge that their characters don't have, and the DM should point this out if they forget. The second option can be fun, but there's no reason why it should take up an inordinate amount of time to narrate that the character performs the standard set of trap detection techniques and finds nothing.

The only time where it might really be an issue is if the characters have an in-game reason to suspect something, and the outcome of a standard search technique is uncertain because there actually is something hidden without any clues to indicate it. If the characters have encountered gargoyles (or piercers, or mimics, etc) in the past, so they're always on the lookout in the future, and there are more gargoyles/piercers/mimics that they might find again if they remain paranoid about it.

The obvious solution, then, is for the DM to not re-use the same gimmick and expect it to work again. Once the players know what to look for, there's no point in that monster ever showing up again, because it isn't going to surprise anyone. And if that monster does have reason to show up again, the DM can cut to the chase and just tell the players about it outright, since it is knowledge that their characters would be able to figure out. "The ceiling of this cavern is beyond the reach of your light; based on past experiences, you know that you're in danger from piercers."

I don't really care about "metagaming." What I want is a game that isn't an exercise in standard operating procedure or the purposes of failure mitigation with the odd Monty Python joke thrown in for good measure. I've been in plenty of games like this and it's not for me. This is why I present telegraphed challenges that afford an opportunity for the players to make decisions that can have a significant impact on the difficulty. "Gotchas" are fake challenges that rely upon lack of awareness or ignorance (real or self-imposed due to "no metagaming" policies). I find these to be anathema to a satisfying game experience.

And to be clear, telegraphing tips one's hand. It does not give it away completely. It provides an opportunity to find the answer and isn't the answer in and of itself. If a player picks up on it and makes decisions in the face of it that makes the upcoming challenge easier, great! If a player doesn't pick up on it or does but makes the wrong decisions, then they screwed up. In the aftermath, however, they'll know they had a fair chance at changing their fate and that they weren't blindsided with a "gotcha."

 

[the Jester]

And the PCs should be automatically suspicious of statues because it's on the checklist of things to be wary about, right?

No. The whole point of an ambush predator is you often don't realize it's there. That should hold true for pcs, too.