But that is exactly the problem. The player is indicating to you that they want to make a check. You demand an action. They tell you an action, and your response is to say that that action is something they have already done, it isn't worth making a check, because you already accounted for it.
So, what is the player left to do? They need to somehow come up with an action other than the action they want to take, because the first action is non-viable.
The first action isn’t non-viable, the results have just already been narrated. If they want different results, they need to try a different action.
Because I don't know where the clue is.
You keep saying "I can't read your mind" but you somehow seem to think that the player has totally read your mind and knows where and how to look for the clues you've left.
You’re assuming I have specific clues in mind that I have placed specifically for the players to find. This is not the case.
Yes, you've said you telegraph, but I want to point you to
@Cruentus 's post. They said they would telegraph a trap if it was in the room, one of the methods they said they would use was "there is a pull rope to the side of the desk,"
Now, for them, that was a telegraph that there was a trap in the room, activate by pulling the rope I imagine. Of course, me, thinking about a fancy room, in a castle, with a pull rope.... it's just a bell for the servants. So, they have telegraphed a clue, and to them it is a good telegraph, but to me sitting at the table, it is just a background detail that isn't actually a clue. So when I go looking for clues, I'm not going to focus on the pull rope.
This is why your response keeps frustrating me, because you seem to assume the player has perfectly picked up on your telegraph, and therefore will know exactly which clues to look for. But I am not assuming that. I am assuming the player may have a vague idea, but not that they know what they are looking for.
I do not assume that at all. I’m ok with players sometimes missing telegraphs. It’s a perfectly normal and expected part of play.
Yes I am reading your posts. Why is the first thing everyone on this site goes to is "can you read?"
I don’t know why that has been your experience. It hasn’t been mine. I can tell you that I got the impression you might be skimming or something because you kept asking me when perception would come up in my games when I had already told you.
Just because you ask for a Wisdom Ability score check instead of a Perception check doesn't mean my point doesn't apply. Because, again, what action are they allowed to take to try and detect danger?
Literally any action they want, so long as it includes a clear and reasonably specific statement of goal (what they want to accomplish) and approach (what their character does to try to make that happen). I will then use my best judgment to determine if it succeeds, if it fails, or if a check is needed to figure that out, and if so, what kind of check would be applicable.
They've stated an action, and you've said "you already did that, that doesn't count."
No, it absolutely does count, and I have already narrated the results of that action.
So, fine, since I need to be so precise. You've made Wisdom Ability checks to detect danger and hidden details a near useless ability check to which proficiency can be applied.
Players make Wisdom checks in my game
all the time. It’s probably the most common type of roll after attack rolls, though that’s just a general impression, I’be never tried to actually count.
Does that make my point more clear? Are we happier now? I don't care which words you use to ask for the die roll, that isn't the point. The point is they are asking for the die roll, they are trying to take an action to use the die roll to get their intended result, but you aren't letting them do it because the only way they know how to ask what they want is regulated to Passive Perception and nothing else.
You’re never going to be able to understand my perspective if you continue thinking of checks as a thing you do to get results. That’s not what checks are
for at my table. You get results by describing actions you character performs in the narrative, and sometimes, if it’s not obvious whether the action your character performs would get the results you want or not, and if not getting the results you want would have a consequence, then a check is for figuring out if you suffer that consequence.
So, if a player wanted to make a Wisdom Ability check using a d20, which may or may not apply their proficiency in the Perception skill, to look for hidden details or detect danger and you won't let them do that by simply saying "I look for hidden details and/or try to detect danger" what actions can they take? I can't read your mind, but it sure seems like from the player perspective their goal and action is pretty clearly laid out, but it isn't good enough. So what is?
Again, if their goal is “find out if there’s danger” and their approach is “look around,” then I determine the results of that action by way of a passive Wisdom (Perception) check, and include those results in my description of the environment. If they want to try doing something
else to try and find out if there’s anything
else hidden in the environment, they are welcome to do so, but I need to know what the character is doing in order to assess whether or not what they’re doing could result in them finding out if anything else is hidden in the environment. This happens all the time, and I frequently call for Wisdom checks to resolve them (to which, yes, the player could add their proficiency bonus if they think one of their proficiencies, such as perception, would help). I don’t know what else you want me to say.
Actually, a failed roll does not neccessarily have any negative consequences. I certainly don't cause negative things to happen to characters who fail perception rolls. But, again, they HAVE told you so.
Clearly you and I interpret the rules for ability checks differently if you think a failed check doesn’t necessarily have consequences. But, rather than arguing over our interpretations of the text, suffice it to say that at my table, it is the case that ability checks always have consequences. Indeed, at my table the fact that checks always have consequences is tautological, because if there was not a consequence, I would not have called for a check. If a PC’s action could succeed or fail to achieve the player’s goal, but failing to achieve that goal would have no consequence, then I would simply narrate success without calling for a check.
They HAVE tried to give you an action, and you've said "No, that doesn't work. Pick a different action." But you won't actually explain what actions would work.
I have said no such thing. I’ve said “you did that, and I have told you the results. If you want different results, try a different action.”
So in other words it was a waste of time to declare their action, because you won't give them new information. And, actually, they don't need to move any of the clutter. The keys are right there. They just need to pay more attention. Which isn't a new action. It is a new roll.
There are no rolls without actions. If there’s a new roll, it must be a new action.
Except that you said if they stay too long in a single place they potential monster attacks.
Yes, which insures that most actions do have a consequence for failure, since most actions take time, or could attract attention.
And that their declared action of "looking again" is a waste of time, which would indicate to me that they are just ticking down the counter til a random encounter shows up.
I’m not going to make them use up time for an action they literally already performed. The exchange of “I look around for danger,” “you were already doing that, I included the results in my narration” takes up (a very small amount of) real-life time, but it doesn’t take up time in the fiction.
And every time we've given a general action, your response has been, "No, what do you DO?" indicating a need for more specific actions.
You have yet to give me an action other than the one I keep telling you I would resolve via a passive Wisdom (Perception) check.
And not everyone desires their only chance to explore being paying precise attention to your every word. They want to have other options. That isn't a problem.
I don’t even know what you’re talking about at this point.
So there is nothing about this idol that I do not know? Because, again, I can't ask questions about things I don't know to ask questions about. Why do you keep acting like the player always knows what to ask about? Can you at least see how if they don't know what to ask about, that is a problem when you then double down that they need to ask specific questions?
If you don’t know what to ask about, then move on. I’ve never had a player in real life have this much trouble coming up with a simple goal. “I want to know if this figure has any religious significance, so I think back to my time studying at Candlekeep.” Or whatever! It’s really not that hard.
In my experience, if it isn't important, you tell them it isn't important and move on. If it is set dressing, I tell them it is set dressing when they start asking deeper questions about it, because I don't have the answers, because those answers don't exist.
I
don’t know if it’s important or not. It’s there. The players can make of it what they will. Maybe it will be very important. Maybe they’ll toss it in a sack and hoc it as soon as they get back to town. That’s not up to me to decide.
The action is thinking. Or recalling if you want to get technical with memories. There is the activity. And you know the intent, they want to know if they know more than you told them.
I
don’t know if they know more than I told them. To figure that out, I need to know what else they’re curious about, and where they imagine their character may know about it from.
Now we are the crossroads. You keep saying you can't tell them, because they haven't asked a specific enough question. But how are they supposed to ask a specific question about things they don't know to ask about? If you respond to them asking with "I've told you everything relevant"
I
don’t know if I’be told them everything relevant. It isn’t up to me what is or isn’t relevant to them. If they want to know something, they have to tell me. If they can’t think of anything else they want to know, then evidently there’s nothing else that’s relevant to them.
then you have ended the line of inquiry. You are saying there is no more information which could be found. And if that is true, then great, we move on. But that isn't your intent. You intend by saying "I've told you everything relevant" to then get them to ask more specific questions.
I have no such intent. Whether or not they ask more specific questions is entirely up to them. I have no horse in that race.
And now instead of DnD, we risk playing 20 Questions, because now it is a matter of asking questions until they hit on something that gives them the clue to ask the right question.
There is no “right question” to ask, and no clue to tip them off to what the non-existent “right question” is. If they have questions, they should ask them. If they don’t, we should move on.
And your responses seem to indicate that you feel that outcome is impossible. But it is trivially possible, I've seen it happen. And I've had DM's pull that sort of thing. I've had DM's where we nearly TPK'd because "you didn't say you looked on the bottom of the vase. If you'd looked, you'd have seen the clue, and then you wouldn't have been caught off-guard" when we all were saying we were searching the room for clues. And yes, you can rightfully say "but that's bad DMing and I'm not a bad DM" and you are 100% correct, you are not a bad DM, but player's develop habits based on the DMs they've had. And the player who asks to roll perception, or asks to look again and wants to roll? They are doing so because they have been trained by DMs who punish them for taking specific actions. And your response of "No, give me a specific action" doesn't encourage them to play differently. It makes them more suspicious, because that's exactly what the Bad DM's say too, and that is always a trap, and they don't want to fall into the trap.
Yes, I am well aware that players pick up habits like this as a defensive response to gotcha DMs. I’m also well aware that players can unlearn these habits. It has happened in my games. Probably will do again. I’m not worried about it.
What I don't understand, is how I can explain this again and again, to try and explain what the player's thought proccess and goals are, again and again, and you can't seem to have an ounce of understanding beyond just repeating yourself.
If I’m repeating myself it’s because I’m responding to you, and you are repeating yourself. I don’t know what else to tell you. I’ve explained how it works in my games. At some point either you accept that or you don’t.
No. It really doesn't. Maybe your player's do it better, but every table I've seen it happen at, it has been a joke of coming up with some hare-brained excuse to allow them to roll the dice. It doesn't make the world feel richer, because it isn't taken seriously, it is taken as "what excuse can I give to allow me to roll"
Instead of having them come up with excuses, I just let them roll. We can justify it afterwards if we feel the need to,
Then do it your way. I don’t really care. My way works great for me and my players.
We tried that. I gave you what I wanted to find, and how I wanted to do it, and you told me it wasn't going to work, because I've already done it.
No, I told you it
did work, because you had already done it and I had told you the results.
So, you don't have a specific action in mind, you just know the action declared doesn't work.
The action declared works perfectly fine. You seem to want the action to have a different result. But it doesn’t work that way. Your action had the result that it had, sorry if you didn’t like it. Maybe try something else if you want a different result.
Yet, you think the player can come up with a different action, that will work? Why should we assume the player is better with coming up with actions than you are?
What does being better at coming up with actions have to do with it? I don’t have an action in mind because it’s not my job to, and in fact, having an action already in mind is exactly what leads to the kinds of gotcha gameplay you seem to be so averse to. When I’m a player, I can and do come up with actions just fine. It actually works great, even in games where the DM is fine with players asking for checks, I tend to achieve automatic success much more often than other players do, because I ask to get results instead of asking for a chance to fail.
I don't think it is "okay" because there are skill abilities and ways to enhance those skills that cannot come into play if the only way for them to interact with the skill is via passive scores.
Good thing passive scores aren’t the only way to interact with proficiencies in my game then?
Instead of making the passive insight the floor of what the character notices when talking to someone, it is the ceiling, because they cannot take actions that lead to "a wisdom ability check that may or may not apply their proficiency in Insight" so they can't do better than their passive 10.
They absolutely can take actions that lead to me calling for a Wisdom check. My players do so all the time.
And what if the player said they wanted to roll instead, because they are a rogue with reliable talent and they are guaranteed to not do worse than their passive, and they want to get higher than their passive?
I would say that they’re free to describe whatever action they wish, and I will determine how to resolve it. This action should, in my determination, be resolved with a passive ability check.
