D&D 5E "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.

[jmucchiello]

This thread reminds me of playing 1e with a**hole DMs (totally different than RBDMs).

Walking in a dungeon corridor and this exchange happens:

DM: Acid drops on you from above, you that 12 hp of damage.
P1: Acid? Where did acid come from?
DM: Do you look up?
P1: After I move back, Yeah.
DM: Okay you see a hole in the ceiling where the acid came from.
P1: How did we not see the hole?
DM: You didn't say you were looking up.
P1: From now on we are always looking up.
DM: Okay.

A few minutes later:

DM: You step on some caltrops and take 5 hp of damage.
P1: Caltrop? How did we not see them?
DM: You said you were looking up.
P1 (angrily): From now on we are always looking up and down and left and right and back and forward. Constantly.
DM: Okay.

Waking up after going to sleep the night before:

DM: You wake up with a stiff neck.
P1: Now what?
DM: All that looking up and down and left and right and back and forward. Perhaps you've pulled a muscle.

 

[Lanefan]

This thread reminds me of playing 1e with a**hole DMs (totally different than RBDMs).

Walking in a dungeon corridor and this exchange happens:

DM: Acid drops on you from above, you that 12 hp of damage.
P1: Acid? Where did acid come from?
DM: Do you look up?
P1: After I move back, Yeah.
DM: Okay you see a hole in the ceiling where the acid came from.
P1: How did we not see the hole?
DM: You didn't say you were looking up.
P1: From now on we are always looking up.
DM: Okay.

A few minutes later:

DM: You step on some caltrops and take 5 hp of damage.
P1: Caltrop? How did we not see them?
DM: You said you were looking up.
P1 (angrily): From now on we are always looking up and down and left and right and back and forward. Constantly.
DM: Okay.

Waking up after going to sleep the night before:

DM: You wake up with a stiff neck.
P1: Now what?
DM: All that looking up and down and left and right and back and forward. Perhaps you've pulled a muscle.

There's a reason the old "Robe of Eyes" was so highly treasured in some games...

 

[RobertBrus]

It's never quite as simple as merely saying "I am looking out for Goblins" - that will not give an advantage on anything. If they are more inventive and put time and effort into 'anti-goblin' strategies though, then maybe - buy a guard dog, train it, make it familiar with goblin scent (as a very quick and crude example).

As regards a possible pickpocketing event - if they are merely milling around a market square in a small village then they are unlikely to find anything work pinching. However in a busy tavern in a large town, a merchant might walk in after a good day's trading. Maybe talk to him? Offer him a drink? Put him at ease? Is he vain or arrogant - pander to those character weaknesses? Find out he has an eye for the ladies? Come up with a ruse involving alcohol and a 'lady of the night'? All of these plans could make it easier to rob him of his hard earned cash.

This is what I mean by engaging with a game world. Not simply 'I try to sneak up using stealth and then make a sleight of hand check to take his purse' - YAWN! Play it out, take time, enjoy the atmosphere, engage, immerse yourself. I, as DM, will generally reward that.

Yes! Great storytelling-roleplaying approach to the game. The dog example (quick and crude as it may be), makes for an interesting side story, which allows the players to interact and earn their advantage.

Engage, interact, put your character into the story in a dynamic way. Use your imagination at least a wee bit, to justify the efforts of the GM to have created a world for you to explore in the first place. Thank you JonnyP71 for a very nice statement that supports the narrative GM's.

 

[Von Ether]

double post

 

[Von Ether]

My two cents.

So, i have some questions to see how other Gms interpret things and such in their games. While RAW cites are fine for those who see them as important to the point, this is more akin to a question of how you manage this and I am not all that interested in whether you can provide six rule cites chapter in verse or not.

The basic issue is one of "player" vs "character" competence and assumptions.

EXAMPLE: The PCs are pursuing some bad guys, known bad guys, like say a posse tracking outlaws.

In one such case in a published product the rules provide this pearl a ruling.

"If players state that they’re watching for potential ambush spots, give them advantage when making these checks"

[FONT=Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif]Now, i make no attempt to hide my dislike for that kind of thing. The "character" is the skilled actor and the character should be much more determinant of success fail than if the player says the right words even when the **in character actions** are no different. [/FONT]

I'm not a fan of how that's stated simply because many players won't take the next step to be more descriptive.

[FONT=Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif]If this rule was based on in-character actions/trade-offs, that would be fine - "if the characters move cautiously, checking for tracks, they will travel slower but gain advantage on checks for spotting ambushes. As a result of moving cautiously... bla blah"

I appreciate this in that it coaches players to describe how they are earning that advantage.

where the slower movement causes maybe more encounters/checks with wandering beasties, the "catch to be either closer to the enemy camp or even not able to catch the camp, etc or a chance that a storm wipes away the tracks etc. Also, certain features or proficiencies could also trigger the change in the odds of spotting - like say favored terrain/enemies. .

Full stop, not a fan of that.

Essentially, the player is only getting a zero sum game. They described how to earn their advantage, but now have put themselves at risk for other dangers. "I've been on the look out for an bandit ambush only to be ambushed by bugbears instead." That eventually encourages just the opposite and you have them clam up and just go with the original, flavorless request to roll dice.

I had a DM do similar "balancing" things before. My warhorse suddenly became a pegasus, but "forgot" how to fight as a warhorse for several game sessions. Another player hatched a dragonette, but it would claw his shoulder and make him fail casting spells for, again, several sessions. By the end of it, both of us would have rather not gotten our "cool" bonuses and kept to regular class features.

 

[5ekyu]

Full stop, not a fan of that.

Essentially, the player is only getting a zero sum game. They described how to earn their advantage, but now have put themselves at risk for other dangers. "I've been on the look out for an bandit ambush only to be ambushed by bugbears instead." That eventually encourages just the opposite and you have them clam up and just go with the original, flavorless request to roll dice.

I had a DM do similar "balancing" things before. My warhorse suddenly became a pegasus, but "forgot" how to fight as a warhorse for several game sessions. Another player hatched a dragonette, but it would claw his shoulder and make him fail casting spells for, again, several sessions. By the end of it, both of us would have rather not gotten our "cool" bonuses and kept to regular class features.

first, thanks for your input. it is appreciated.

Second, i see the elements you describe quite differently and think maybe i did not communicate it well enough.

First yes they described how to gain advantage but... if those actions do not cost anything, have no consequences of their own, how then does not always having advantage on the road for ambushes become standard practice? if you look at many of the other cases of method produce advantage in the game they often come with a corresponding "consequence" - use action to gain disadvantage on attacks against you - use second character help to gain advantage on attack or skills checks - etc. There are not many cases described within the rules where all you need is to basically ask for advantage (by means of description) and gain it without any other corresponding consequence. The cases where it seems you do, say melee attacks against a prone target - the circumstance gives you advantage without necessarily any specific description on your part.

But to a more specific case - actions and choices have consequences and those consequences matter. if moving slowly and cautiously enough to more easily spot advantages matters, then the impacts and consequences of moving in that way have to apply good and bad. Chasing after a moving force can leave you open for ambush if they left one behind and moving cautiously and slowly to watch for those means you don not keep up as well with the main group. it seems obvious this is a logical consequence and trade-off of speed vs safety with good and bad on both sides.

As for bandits vs bugbears - sorry -i made no such reference. maybe it works differently in your games but in mine travelling slowly and cautiously does not leave you vulnerable based on what magic word you chose to use to describe your enemies. You say bandits, great, you still get the same cautious and wary approach when i saw "bugbears". no need for me to assume and insert some "gotcha" thing based on the names you chose to use. Slowly and cautiously looking for enemies is good enough... you are sacrificing speed and rate of travel.

As for your pegasus and your dragonnette - those sound pretty ridiculous to me but have nothing to do with consequences of actions. It seems like both are cases where your character already did what was needed to gain the pegasus or the egg and after the fact the Gm started hitting you with direct combat penalties. That is different by far from a case where while taking voluntarily specific actions you must suffer both the positive and negative results of those actions.

I wont guess what was in your GMs minds when they did those things, but that is different from saying "you chose to move slowly so you get these consequences (some good, some bad) while doing so."

or at least, that is how i see it.

Thanks again.

 

[Von Ether]

first, thanks for your input. it is appreciated.

As for bandits vs bugbears - sorry -i made no such reference. maybe it works differently in your games but in mine travelling slowly and cautiously does not leave you vulnerable based on what magic word you chose to use to describe your enemies. You say bandits, great, you still get the same cautious and wary approach when i saw "bugbears". no need for me to assume and insert some "gotcha" thing based on the names you chose to use. Slowly and cautiously looking for enemies is good enough... you are sacrificing speed and rate of travel.
Thanks again.

I'm only trying to clarify my opinion. No wrong way to play the game and not judging. Let's forget the terms for the monsters I used.

Let's put it like this:

* The player is looking for a way to help the party by getting an advantage on a roll. "I look for ambush spots" He gets advantage, but it's a bland way to do it. End result is a positive.
* The player describes it an cool way "I go slower to carefully look for possible ambush spots"; to justify getting the advantage on his roll. He get advantage and (hopefully) deeper verisimilitude into the game. End result is a positive.
* The player describes it an cool way "I go slower to carefully look for possible ambush spots"; to justify getting the advantage on his roll. He get advantage and (hopefully) deeper verisimilitude into the game - a positive. But then the party now has an increased chance of encounters, where players use up resources or have a chance to die - a negative. End result: The negative cancels the positive.

Or to state it another way, the players move quicker across the terrain and risk one ambush encounter, but if they go slower, they won't be ambushed but might still face two, three or even more (depending on the length of the trip) encounters.

Thus why would the player bother doing more than the bare minimum knowing that adding extra detail will just give him additional grief for his efforts?

Perhaps we are using our terms and expectations for encounters differently.

In my games, my player would rather have less encounters and do the gamble on the ambush than be bogged down in the wilderness or a dungeon from wandering critters.

Perhaps in other games, ambush encounters are so lethal, that the group would be cut down like wheat and they rather tackle easier wandering encounters

There is an RPG, though, that lives on every dungeon crawl decision having escalating consequences, Torchbearer.

 

[5ekyu]

I'm only trying to clarify my opinion. No wrong way to play the game and not judging. Let's forget the terms for the monsters I used.

Let's put it like this:

* The player is looking for a way to help the party by getting an advantage on a roll. "I look for ambush spots" He gets advantage, but it's a bland way to do it. End result is a positive.
* The player describes it an cool way "I go slower to carefully look for possible ambush spots"; to justify getting the advantage on his roll. He get advantage and (hopefully) deeper verisimilitude into the game. End result is a positive.
* The player describes it an cool way "I go slower to carefully look for possible ambush spots"; to justify getting the advantage on his roll. He get advantage and (hopefully) deeper verisimilitude into the game - a positive. But then the party now has an increased chance of encounters, where players use up resources or have a chance to die - a negative. End result: The negative cancels the positive.

Or to state it another way, the players move quicker across the terrain and risk one ambush encounter, but if they go slower, they won't be ambushed but might still face two, three or even more (depending on the length of the trip) encounters.

Thus why would the player bother doing more than the bare minimum knowing that adding extra detail will just give him additional grief for his efforts?

Perhaps we are using our terms and expectations for encounters differently.

In my games, my player would rather have less encounters and do the gamble on the ambush than be bogged down in the wilderness or a dungeon from wandering critters.

Perhaps in other games, ambush encounters are so lethal, that the group would be cut down like wheat and they rather tackle easier wandering encounters

There is an RPG, though, that lives on every dungeon crawl decision having escalating consequences, Torchbearer.

I see where i failed at communicating... Your first case where they state the bland and fkavorless would NOT get advantage in my game. The inclusion of it in the adventure RAW was what i was objecting to in the inotial thread post.

The other cases where you do abc to gain def but lose ghi are what i allow, enable and encourage in my games.

I would expect a decision of "lets move quick, risk the ambush but catch the main group,or maybe pass them" to be a calculated risk and them to expect they might suffer a surprise they might have avoided but gain an earlier catch to the main group. Might also shorten chances of other encounters.

Similar but reversed for slow and steady.

I would expect my players to judge how serious they are worried about the ambush and weigh it against the gains from catching the main group quicker.



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Charlaquin]

This is why I prefer to give Advantage based on situational things. “I’m looking for an ambush” won’t get you Advantage because I assume you’re a competent adventurer who is generally always looking for an ambush. Stating it outloud is all well and good, but you’re not really doing anything to gain that advantage. Now, if you’re traveling in uneven terrain and you decide to take the high ground in order to get a better vantage point from which to spot potential ambushes, now that’s something you could get Advantage for. Because it’s a unique circumstance that you are taking, well, advantage of. And ideally, that choice should come at an opportunity cost. Maybe taking the low ground would have been a faster route or something. That way the choice is a meaningful one; you’re weighing your options (do we take the faster route or the safer one?) and making an informed decision based on what you imagine your character would do given the situation at hand. And isn’t that what roleplaying is all about? (Rhetorical question. That is what roleplaying is all about for me. If it’s not for others, that’s cool. Different strokes.)

 

[Von Ether]

I see where i failed at communicating... Your first case where they state the bland and fkavorless would NOT get advantage in my game. The inclusion of it in the adventure RAW was what i was objecting to in the inotial thread post.

The other cases where you do abc to gain def but lose ghi are what i allow, enable and encourage in my games.

I would expect a decision of "lets move quick, risk the ambush but catch the main group,or maybe pass them" to be a calculated risk and them to expect they might suffer a surprise they might have avoided but gain an earlier catch to the main group. Might also shorten chances of other encounters.

Similar but reversed for slow and steady.

I would expect my players to judge how serious they are worried about the ambush and weigh it against the gains from catching the main group quicker.



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

LOL! There is no wrong way to play, but my player style would not match with your GMing style. No sin either way.