D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[Swarmkeeper]

Just a nitpick, but that's not telegraphing. Telegraphing implies that something might be present. It's a clue. If they touch the wall and discover it to be wet and slippery, it's not a telegraph of the wall being wet and slippter.

But the wetness on the wall does telegraph the possibility of slipping if one were to try climbing said wall, right? The wetness isn't the problem that needs telegraphing. It is slipping on it later that is the problem that needs telegraphing. Make sense?

I didn't say that. I said that sometimes things are not going to be telegraphed due to how the environment is set up and that poking around is how you find those things. That doesn't mean that no poking around is going to be present when telegraphing happens. Sometimes it will. Sometimes it won't.

Ah, understood.

Spilled ink in a closed drawer. That was easy. It's an environmental description that you aren't going to know about until you poke around and open the drawer. Dry rot on the bottom of the dresser that isn't discoverable until the dresser is turned over is another. There are lots of descriptions that won't be present or telegraphed until you poke around.

You still seem to be conflating discovery with telegraphing despite.

As I said above, the purpose of telegraphing is to avoid blatant gotchas. Not discovering spilled ink in a drawer until you open the drawer has... nothing to do with telegraphing or gotchas. Now, is that same spilled ink important in some way? Might want to telegraph some clue that draws attention to the drawer. Is the spilled ink really a contact poison? Might want to telegraph that.

 

[Oofta]

Sure, and what if XYZ? Perhaps you missed the spots where I gave two other options and then said "or whatever"? Or where the PC touches the damp wall before climbing it? I dunno, how about: "There's a dampish, mossy odor in here"... or whatever.

TL;DR: as DM, come up with something

There is no way for a DM to describe everything the PCs could interact with in perfect detail. I may have thought I described it accurately, perhaps I did not. The wall may be made of loose shale that crumbles when they try to climb it, attempting to climb was the best way to discover this fact.

This is not about "gotchas". I avoid gotchas by ... wait for it ... not doing gotchas. It's about streamlining the game and players not having to hang on my every word, expecting my word to convey what I think it did, and simply not wasting time. Yes, there's a wall. No I didn't expect the PCs to climb it. Why would I go into detail about the wall? That, and it feels like some people have never gone exploring/climbing natural cliffs. Sometimes it looks like you should be able to climb it but you simply don't know until you try. Maybe abundant handholds at the bottom aren't there as you climb higher. Maybe there are sections where the rock is loose and it crumbles.

Last, but not least, why is it such a big deal? This happens now and then, the PC goes to open the door only to be told it's locked, it's tedious to have them ask at every door "is it locked?" There's no point, having to clarify before every and any attempt would slow the game to a halt.

 

[Lanefan]

So the example of gameplay we're imagining goes something like this:

1.<The DM has adequately described the environment which includes a wall.>
2. Player: Dave the Barbarian climbs the wall to see what's at the top.
3. DM: Not so fast Dave, make a DC 15 Strength (Athletics) check to find out just how slippery this wall really is!

More like "Not so fast Dave, it's a wall, not a staircase - let's have a DC 15 Strength (Athletivs) check to see if you can get up there."

If I was the player in this example, I might feel that (3.) calls (1.) into question.

I wouldn't, as I fully expect and accept that there will be things in the setting that my PC simply wouldn't notice unless either closely looking for them or interacting with them.

So, if on hearing the DM narrate a wall, if I'm thinking of climbing it and I don't look closely first then loose stones or a slippery surface could easily catch me out on the climb when I interact with them the hard way.

Okay, so your players have no direct input into the fiction. Is that correct?

Huh?

Their input into the fiction comes via their words - i.e. what they say to each other and to anyone else they meet - and their actions, be those actions tried and failed or tried and succeeded.

The setting is "written" before the actions are declared (i.e. the DM narrates the scene) but the what-happens fiction isn't "written" until after any actions are resolved (i.e. when the DM narrates the outcome). Saying "Dave the Barbarian climbs the wall to see what's at the top" adds to the fiction in that Dave is trying the climb as opposed to doing something else, but the results of that climb (success, failure, faceplant, whatever) aren't added to the fiction until the action has been resolved.

And resolution can be as simple as the DM saying "OK, Dave, you're at the top* and can see a small stone-floored courtyard on the other side, empty other than a few leaves and some dust being stirred by the wind.^"

* - this resolves the climb action with a straight "yes"; it's easy to overlook this as being a mechanical action resolution but it is.
^ - this describes/narrates the scene revealed by Dave's action, thus fulfilling his goal in climbing.

 

[Maxperson]

But the wetness on the wall does telegraph the possibility of slipping if one were to try climbing said wall, right?

No. Slippery doesn't telegraph slippery. It IS slippery. When they touch the wet wall they will feel the slipperiness. Nothing gets telegraphed unless the cast light and see the wall glisten.

The wetness isn't the problem that needs telegraphing. It is slipping on it later that is the problem that needs telegraphing. Make sense?

Feeling slipperiness doesn't telegraph that they might slip. It tells them flat out that they might slip.

You still seem to be conflating discovery with telegraphing despite.

I'm not conflating anything. I'm saying that discovery(touching the wet wall and finding it slippery) doesn't telegraph that they might slip. It tells them straight out. Telegraphing is an implied possibility in advance of encountering said possibility. If you start coming across a bunch of statues in the middle of a cave system it might telegraph a medusa or basilisk. Or it might telegraph some crazy hermit sculptor.

As I said above, the purpose of telegraphing is to avoid blatant gotchas.

I agree. I don't think a slippery wall is a gotcha, though. Even if the slippery portion is only near the top for reasons and you don't detect it in advance, you can still opt to stop climbing and go back down.

 

[Lanefan]

100% this. Non-telegraphed hidden environmental details lead to player frustration, IME.

Just as they would lead to character frustration in the fiction, when they don't notice something until it's too late.

This is exactly what I want - that when the characters are frustrated, the players feel that frustration. And yes, if something's obvious up front they'll notice it and it'll be narrated; but remember the example here is that the wall being slippery is a post-hoc rationale for a failed climb check!

When someone fails a check there needs to be an in-fiction reason for it; and much of the time that reason has to be generated (and narrated) on the spot, after the check has failed. Sometimes it's obvious - the river was too wide to jump, or the lock was too tough to pick - but other times it isn't always, and walls are a prime example of such.

 

[Lanefan]

This is what draws me to this type of play, it is fundamentally more honest with itself. It doesn't pretend that there's either any 'objective' reality to the fictional world, nor even that anyone knows what is in it until the moment it impacts play.

When it comes to this type of play, the bolded is what makes me hold a holy symbol out in front of me and back away slowly....

 

[Lanefan]

2. Player: Dave the Barbarian climbs the wall to see what's at the top.

You must have been reading my adventure logs! There was a quite memorable "Dave the Barbarian" for a while in my current campaign; and though he was retired from play because his player moved away IRL, he's in theory still out there somewhere...

 

[Swarmkeeper]

There is no way for a DM to describe everything the PCs could interact with in perfect detail.

Obviously. We do our best.

I may have thought I described it accurately, perhaps I did not. The wall may be made of loose shale that crumbles when they try to climb it, attempting to climb was the best way to discover this fact.

This is not about "gotchas". I avoid gotchas by ... wait for it ... not doing gotchas. It's about streamlining the game and players not having to hang on my every word, expecting my word to convey what I think it did, and simply not wasting time. Yes, there's a wall. No I didn't expect the PCs to climb it. Why would I go into detail about the wall? That, and it feels like some people have never gone exploring/climbing natural cliffs. Sometimes it looks like you should be able to climb it but you simply don't know until you try. Maybe abundant handholds at the bottom aren't there as you climb higher. Maybe there are sections where the rock is loose and it crumbles.

I don't know. Why would you go into any detail about the wall? The climb rules seem pretty straightforward. Are you perhaps trying to telegraph something that might be important to climbing said wall?

Last, but not least, why is it such a big deal? This happens now and then, the PC goes to open the door only to be told it's locked, it's tedious to have them ask at every door "is it locked?" There's no point, having to clarify before every and any attempt would slow the game to a halt.

Your whole post, frankly, appears to be a broad swath of deliberate misinterpretation. Why do you continue to do this? Having a bad day and want to take it out on an internet stranger? Is it for the comedy? I mean, I suppose such exaggeration of how I play could be funny to someone.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

No. Slippery doesn't telegraph slippery. It IS slippery. When they touch the wet wall they will feel the slipperiness. Nothing gets telegraphed unless the cast light and see the wall glisten.

The wall is wet. No one said the wall was slippery.

Feeling slipperiness doesn't telegraph that they might slip. It tells them flat out that they might slip.

I'm not conflating anything. I'm saying that discovery(touching the wet wall and finding it slippery) doesn't telegraph that they might slip. It tells them straight out.

Ok. Telegraphing can be super obvious or not or somewhere in between. Players will pick up on some things and not others and make up still more. So?

Telegraphing is an implied possibility in advance of encountering said possibility. If you start coming across a bunch of statues in the middle of a cave system it might telegraph a medusa or basilisk. Or it might telegraph some crazy hermit sculptor.

Cool.

I agree. I don't think a slippery wall is a gotcha, though. Even if the slippery portion is only near the top for reasons and you don't detect it in advance, you can still opt to stop climbing and go back down.

Agreed.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Just as they would lead to character frustration in the fiction, when they don't notice something until it's too late.

This is exactly what I want - that when the characters are frustrated, the players feel that frustration. And yes, if something's obvious up front they'll notice it and it'll be narrated; but remember the example here is that the wall being slippery is a post-hoc rationale for a failed climb check!

Yeah, I don't do post-hoc rationale for failed anything in 5e. The check wouldn't even happen if the wall wasn't slippery to begin with (or involved some other significant hazard). In general, the dice determine outcomes in 5e, they don't generate descriptions.

When someone fails a check there needs to be an in-fiction reason for it; and much of the time that reason has to be generated (and narrated) on the spot, after the check has failed. Sometimes it's obvious - the river was too wide to jump, or the lock was too tough to pick - but other times it isn't always, and walls are a prime example of such.

See above. Different versions of the game treat this situation differently.


EDITed for clarity