D&D General "I make a perception check."

[Chaosmancer]

Fundamentally it’s the same thing. I’m just applying different mechanics than you would to resolve the action.

True, those things are differences between rolled ability checks and passive ability checks. There are also differences between ability checks and saving throws, but you don’t get to ask if you can make an acrobatics check instead of a dexterity save because you want to apply your expertise feature. It is the DM who determines what mechanic to use to resolve an action, according to their best judgment and understanding of the rules.

Okay, that is a completely unfair comparison. I'm not asking to do Acrobatics instead of a Dex Save (which is something that a player cannot declare, since Dex Saves are forced by monsters and NPCs). I'm asking to use my skills, by declaring an action, and noting that if I was able to do that (which is the main play loop of DnD) that there are multiple abilities tied into rolling a D20 that are not tied into a passive check.

Which is why a passive check is not "fundamentally the same thing" as an active check. Rolling a ten on the die and being given a ten by the nature of passives is completely different when multiple abilities and dials in the game allow you to interact with that die in meaningful ways.

Frankly, if you think there is no difference between a passive check and an active check, why have your players ever roll the d20? The DM could just determine all actions are best solved by taking 10. But clearly that defeats the fundamental purpose of the proficiency system and the skill system in the game.

You say “clues” like there’s some sort of mystery to be solved, that I have laid intentional clues for the players to find so they can figure it out. That’s just not how I run games. Are there things in the room? Yes. Are some of the things hidden? Sometimes. If there are, I will probably try to telegraph that in some way so the players have the information they need to decide whether to spend their time searching for stuff or not. If they miss the telegraphs, that’s perfectly fine, that’s how the game goes sometimes.

Clues is just a shorthand. Maybe there is a mystery. Maybe it is a discovery. I don't know, but clearly there should be SOMETHING notable in the room if the PCs are taking their time to bother looking around. After all, if there is nothing relevant in the room, why are we spending time on it?

Move around, look behind things, maybe try to spook the goblin out of hiding, whatever. Imagine the world and how you would interact with it if it was a real place, and then describe those interactions. That’s how roleplaying works.

Well, when I imagine myself looking for someone hidden, I often imagine myself studying the environment with my eyes. Especially if the someone hidden is likely to stab me if I get close to them. So, I am completely roleplaying, thank you for reminding me how the game I've spent so much time playing works.

Well I don’t know what else to tell you. A player can apply their proficiency bonus to a check if they think one of their proficiencies applies. If they aren’t sure, they can ask, but I advise them to trust their instincts; they probably know what they intended better than I do.

I really don’t think it’s helpful to discuss actions at my table in terms of skills, because doing so does not accurately reflect the gameplay at my table. You did say you were trying to understand that, didn’t you? One of the things that’s key to understanding gameplay at my table is that players at my table don’t “make skill checks.” They describe what they want to accomplish and what their characters do in the imagined space to try to bring that about. Sometimes, I ask them to make ability checks to find out if a consequence occurs as a result of something a player described their character doing.

It’s hard for me to give you an example because I don’t have enough context. What action would I describe my character doing in the shared imagined space? I can’t answer that because we haven’t established any shared imagined space. We’re talking in vague abstractions and broad generalizations, which makes anything that resembles gameplay at my table kind of impossible. Hopefully the chasing the goblin example helped.

Honestly, I am trying to understand, but every time I ask you something you tell me you don't do that. You don't know. You can't imagine that. It really is making me wonder what the heck you actually do behind the screen. Combining all your answers together, it seems almost like you just randomly roll a location, set your players inside the location with no idea what is going on, why they are there, or what any goals of play are other than to have them wander around your randomized location and make up things and connections.

I'm not trying to be dismissive or rude, but... that's what I'm getting, since you never know anything about anything about what the players could be trying to accomplish. I honestly wonder if your players tell you what the adventure they want is, and then you randomize a location that matches that. Because you seem to have no context for them doing anything or finding anything except direct physical actions.

I mean it can be used on any check they make in the next minute, if I recall correctly.

Which is why I said "and while it wasn't wasted" in my example.

That’s how it goes sometimes. Your plans don’t always work out like you thought they would, and then you have to come up with new plans.

But they never even got to try their plan. That's not their plan not working out, that is their plan being vetoed. Which is completely different.

I just told you learning different information is a consequence for a failed roll, as per the DMG recommendation of progress combined with a setback as a possible consequence.

Okay, well I'm telling you that I don't think learning a different fact is a consequence of failure, especially not how you were seeming to define it. Frankly, it is no different than just saying "You don't know" or "You can't recall" which you claimed was not an adequate consequence for failure.

Seriously, I don't see a difference in:

"I want to roll religion to see what rituals this idol of Shar is used in?"
"Okay" dice clattering "I'm sorry, all you can recall about Shar is that she is the sister of Selune and the Goddess of Darkness"

compared to

"I want to roll religion to see what rituals this idol of Shar is used in?"
"Okay" dice clattering "I'm sorry, you don't know"

The end result is identical.

I mean, goofing around still happens plenty (they’re 10 in-game minute turns, not 10 real-life minute turns), but yes, the time pressure absolutely does discourage spending in-game time on superfluous actions. I’d consider that a feature, not a bug. It creates (in-game) urgency and keeps gameplay moving, which are good things in my opinion. People wonder how you’re supposed to get 6-8 encounters in a single adventuring day? This is how.

Right, but that pressure isn't something I want all the time.

“With no roll” is an assumption you’re bringing to the table. I explicitly said in an earlier post that I wouldn’t deprive a player of the opportunity to make a save because their blind guess of how to avoid a trap was wrong; because that would suck.

But you would deprive them of the opportunity to make an ability check that may apply proficiency to detect the trap, which is what I'm talking about, and sucks even more. "But you still get to save" doesn't make a difference when their goal which was completely ruined, was to not have to roll a save at all.

It absolutely matters that they’re attempting to find and avoid traps. It also matters how they’re trying to do so. I use those two pieces of information to determine when and if a game mechanic (such as an ability check) is needed to resolve the action.

But the how means they trigger the trap and have zero chance to find and avoid it. So the intent doesn't matter unless the how conveniently avoids the unknown, unseeable danger. It doesn't matter if they moved into the center of the room to look for traps or to soliloquy about poor yorrik, moving to the center of the room triggers the trap, no chance to detect it.

I know plenty of things about it, I just don’t know what, if any of it, is important. That’s not really up to me to decide, because I’m not telling a story. Maybe some of that information will end up being important later, maybe it won’t. We (the players and I) are going to have to play the game to find out, together.

Seriously, I don't understand how you run a game without having some sembalance of things happening. If the cracked teacup is just as potentially important as the necromantic grimoire is just as important as the loose flagstone then there is either a common story thread tying it all together, or you have no story whatsoever, created together or not.

Ok, sure. If they say something like “I search the wardrobe for hidden items,” that tells me what they want to accomplish (find any hidden items in the wardrobe) and how (searching through it). If there’s nothing hidden there, I tell them they don’t find anything. If there is something hidden there, I might call for a Wisdom check to see if they find it within 10 minutes (and they can add Perception, or Investigation, or… I don’t know, woodcarver’s tools if they want to). And if they fail to find it, they’re welcome to spend another 10 minutes trying again, for as long as they’re willing to risk doing so as the next roll for complications draws closer.

But if they tell you "I want to search for hidden items in this room" then they have told you what they want to accomplish (find any hidden items in the room) and how (search it).

And since an investigation check can be used to search an area for hidden things, if they say "I want to investigate the room" then they have still told you what they want to accomplish (find hidden items or things in the room) and how (searching it)

The only difference I can figure between this and the wardrobe is that they won't be able to do it in ten minutes, per your rulings.

Yes, that’s why it’s important for the player to say where they think their character might have seen it, because how I resolve the actuon may be different depending on what they describe.

For the record though, if the sigil is from Tyr and I know the character is also from Tyr, I’d just tell them it reminds them of something they saw in Tyr. That’s part of my job as DM, because that’s something the character should know but the player can’t know unless I tell them.

Which was exactly the point GMforpowergamers was making. Maybe you've forgotten their character is from Tyr, maybe they haven't declared where they are from yet, but by requiring the source of their knowledge before letting them roll, your are putting them in an awkward position of trying to guess.

But, also, would you just tell them that the sigil reminds them of something they saw in Tyr, or would you tell them what it is? If after saying that they recognize it, if they say "I have proficiency in Arcana" would you then reveal the rest of the information?

But the idea that it wasn’t mentioned in the description is an assumption you’re bringing to the table. If it would be guaranteed that the character would know the thing, and the player couldn’t know the thing themselves, then it’s my responsibility as DM to tell the player the thing. That should be a given.

It should be. But it doesn't always work out that way. And when you are also having them make up things as they go along, who is to say anyone remembers anything.

Err… Establishing backstory details as you play (such as when trying to recall information, for example) is part of creating an emergent backstory. I don’t think describing the character’s backstory as in quantum superposition until a knowledge check causes it (part of it, anyway) to collapse into a defined state is inaccurate.

So your goal, per Tetrasodium's point, is to have your players declare where they might have learned any given information, so that later if they tell you something different you can tell them "No, you said three sessions ago you studied religion in Candlekeep, you didn't study in Evermeet"? Because that was their basic thrust, that you have players declare their source of knowledge out loud so that they can't retcon it later and you and the other players can call them out or punish them if they try and retcon it.

Or does that have nothing to do with what we were talking about?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Just to step out of the endless replying I've been doing for a moment.

• I'm not against asking for clarification when a player asks to do something.
• I'm not against asking for methods when they are doing something actively vague, or with social skills that I feel need that response. I fully can get behind someone asking for "where do you hide" when a player asks to stealth. That is information you need.

Where I start getting a touch annoyed is when the players intent and action are obvious. If you just finished describing a door, and they hold up a die and say "investigation?" then they are clearly attempting to find traps or other hidden dangers in the door. If your goal isn't any sort of "gotcha" then that is plenty of information to allow the roll to proceed and adjudicate the results.

Additionally, if a player has declared their intent is to detect and avoid traps, and you force them to take "any action" before you let them attempt to detect traps, and their action leads to the trap triggering with no hope of detecting it. I find that to be a crappy move. You knew their intent was to detect the trap, setting it off without letting them attempt to detect it is just punishing them for guessing wrong on which actions were safe to take.

And finally, I just get annoyed with people who act like declaring an action without mentioning the game mechanics is somehow superior roleplaying to just using the game jargon to ask the same question. And there have been more than a few people in this rant thread who have responded with ideas of "training players" out of doing so, with the intent of making them "better players". I understand for some of you the D20 is a sign of failure, because it could fail, while you believe declaring your actions means you will be allowed to auto-succeed the majority of the time. That isn't how everyone plays. Most of us have a consensus at the table of what actions are likely to need a d20, because the outcome is uncertain. If convincing the King isn't something that is uncertain, because the players have the knowledge already, great. But if you make it certain because a player makes a really great speech that moves you... honestly less great. Because this prioritizes your players comfortable with speech-making instead of those who built a character who is supposed to be able to mechanically resolve uncertainty in social situations.

Frankly, I don't think the two styles are that far apart. But I think failing forward really resolves any issues with turning to the d20 when you as the player aren't sure of what exact action will get you the information or result you want.

 

[Smackpixi]

Just to step out of the endless replying I've been doing for a moment.

• I'm not against asking for clarification when a player asks to do something.
• I'm not against asking for methods when they are doing something actively vague, or with social skills that I feel need that response. I fully can get behind someone asking for "where do you hide" when a player asks to stealth. That is information you need.

Where I start getting a touch annoyed is when the players intent and action are obvious. If you just finished describing a door, and they hold up a die and say "investigation?" then they are clearly attempting to find traps or other hidden dangers in the door. If your goal isn't any sort of "gotcha" then that is plenty of information to allow the roll to proceed and adjudicate the results.

Additionally, if a player has declared their intent is to detect and avoid traps, and you force them to take "any action" before you let them attempt to detect traps, and their action leads to the trap triggering with no hope of detecting it. I find that to be a crappy move. You knew their intent was to detect the trap, setting it off without letting them attempt to detect it is just punishing them for guessing wrong on which actions were safe to take.

And finally, I just get annoyed with people who act like declaring an action without mentioning the game mechanics is somehow superior roleplaying to just using the game jargon to ask the same question. And there have been more than a few people in this rant thread who have responded with ideas of "training players" out of doing so, with the intent of making them "better players". I understand for some of you the D20 is a sign of failure, because it could fail, while you believe declaring your actions means you will be allowed to auto-succeed the majority of the time. That isn't how everyone plays. Most of us have a consensus at the table of what actions are likely to need a d20, because the outcome is uncertain. If convincing the King isn't something that is uncertain, because the players have the knowledge already, great. But if you make it certain because a player makes a really great speech that moves you... honestly less great. Because this prioritizes your players comfortable with speech-making instead of those who built a character who is supposed to be able to mechanically resolve uncertainty in social situations.

Frankly, I don't think the two styles are that far apart. But I think failing forward really resolves any issues with turning to the d20 when you as the player aren't sure of what exact action will get you the information or result you want.

i feel like the distinction I said before, tell me what your character wants to do, not what you want to do is a fair request of players. Characters can’t make rolls, but you can after you tell me what your character wants to do in fiction. That said, I’m aware of what that player wants and I’m not gonna argue or be a dick about it Or force the issue. However i do think they should learn to talk in fiction, don’t you? Not the least reason being that your character sheet has ten options and in game fiction has a million.

 

[Charlaquin]

Okay, that is a completely unfair comparison. I'm not asking to do Acrobatics instead of a Dex Save (which is something that a player cannot declare, since Dex Saves are forced by monsters and NPCs). I'm asking to use my skills, by declaring an action, and noting that if I was able to do that (which is the main play loop of DnD) that there are multiple abilities tied into rolling a D20 that are not tied into a passive check.

Which is why a passive check is not "fundamentally the same thing" as an active check. Rolling a ten on the die and being given a ten by the nature of passives is completely different when multiple abilities and dials in the game allow you to interact with that die in meaningful ways.

Frankly, if you think there is no difference between a passive check and an active check, why have your players ever roll the d20? The DM could just determine all actions are best solved by taking 10. But clearly that defeats the fundamental purpose of the proficiency system and the skill system in the game.

I think I may not have made myself clear. I’m not saying a passive check is fundamentally the same as a rolled check. I’m saying that complaining because the DM ruled that your action should be resolved with a passive check instead of a rolled one is fundamentally the same as complaining because your DM rules that your action should be resolved with a Dex save instead of a Dex (Acrobatics) check. It is the DM’s role to determine how to resolve actions, and yes, that decision will necessarily mean that some of your character’s features won’t be applicable (and others will), depending on the mechanic.

Clues is just a shorthand. Maybe there is a mystery. Maybe it is a discovery. I don't know, but clearly there should be SOMETHING notable in the room if the PCs are taking their time to bother looking around. After all, if there is nothing relevant in the room, why are we spending time on it?

Well they can’t exactly know if there’s something notable in the room without searching, at least not for sure. Though, with proper use of telegraphing, they should at least be able to make a reasonable educated guess. Sometimes they’ll be wrong and end up missing something noteworthy, or end up spending time searching for something that isn’t there. That’s how it goes sometimes. Time pressure, such as from regular rolls for complications, help keep the latter to a minimum.

Well, when I imagine myself looking for someone hidden, I often imagine myself studying the environment with my eyes.

Especially if the someone hidden is likely to stab me if I get close to them. So, I am completely roleplaying, thank you for reminding me how the game I've spent so much time playing works.

That’s very strange to me. If you can find someone just by surveying the area they’re in with your eyes, they aren’t exactly very well hidden, are they? Like, I have to imagine you’ve played hide and seek at some point in your life, right? Even children playing games generally catch on that to hide successfully, you need to conceal yourself within or behind things, so that anyone looking for them will have to go to some manner of effort to find them. At least changing their position at an absolute minimum.

Honestly, I am trying to understand, but every time I ask you something you tell me you don't do that. You don't know. You can't imagine that. It really is making me wonder what the heck you actually do behind the screen. Combining all your answers together, it seems almost like you just randomly roll a location, set your players inside the location with no idea what is going on, why they are there, or what any goals of play are other than to have them wander around your randomized location and make up things and connections.

I'm not trying to be dismissive or rude, but... that's what I'm getting, since you never know anything about anything about what the players could be trying to accomplish. I honestly wonder if your players tell you what the adventure they want is, and then you randomize a location that matches that. Because you seem to have no context for them doing anything or finding anything except direct physical actions.

Literally the only thing I’ve been saying I don’t know is whether or not something is important. I know all kinds of information about what’s in the space. I don’t know which bits of that information will end up being important and which ones won’t. I just set up the parameters, it’s the players’ job to make what they will of them.

But they never even got to try their plan. That's not their plan not working out, that is their plan being vetoed. Which is completely different.

Their plan was to try and find the goblin by looking for it with their eyeballs, right? They did get to try that. I ruled that it would be resolved with a passive Wisdom (Perception) check.

Okay, well I'm telling you that I don't think learning a different fact is a consequence of failure, especially not how you were seeming to define it. Frankly, it is no different than just saying "You don't know" or "You can't recall" which you claimed was not an adequate consequence for failure.

Seriously, I don't see a difference in:

"I want to roll religion to see what rituals this idol of Shar is used in?"
"Okay" dice clattering "I'm sorry, all you can recall about Shar is that she is the sister of Selune and the Goddess of Darkness"

compared to

"I want to roll religion to see what rituals this idol of Shar is used in?"
"Okay" dice clattering "I'm sorry, you don't know"

The end result is identical.

Ok, well, I consider it progress with a setback, which in my book constitutes a consequence. Disagree with that evaluation if you like, but it’s how I rule on the matter.

Right, but that pressure isn't something I want all the time.

Then it doesn’t seem to me like a monster-infested dungeon or treacherous wilderness is a place you would want to spend much time in.

But you would deprive them of the opportunity to make an ability check that may apply proficiency to detect the trap, which is what I'm talking about, and sucks even more. "But you still get to save" doesn't make a difference when their goal which was completely ruined, was to not have to roll a save at all.

They absolutely get a chance to make an ability check. First of all, they get to make a special kind of ability check (called a passive ability check), which doesn’t involve any dice rolls. Additionally, depending on their actions, they have a chance to find the trap without even needing to make an ability check, or they might have to make an ability check to determine if they find it or not. Or, they might fail to find it and end up triggering it, though that’s relatively unlikely unless they fail to pick up on the trap’s telegraph. And even in that case, I would first narrate what they observe in the moment they trigger the trap, and depending on their actions, they might avoid any negative effects of the trap without having to make a saving throw. Or, in the absolute worst case scenario, they’ll at least get to make a save to try and avoid it. They really have every opportunity to avoid being harmed by the trap; it all comes down to their decisions, and maybe some dice rolls as necessary to resolve any outstanding uncertainty.

But the how means they trigger the trap and have zero chance to find and avoid it. So the intent doesn't matter unless the how conveniently avoids the unknown, unseeable danger. It doesn't matter if they moved into the center of the room to look for traps or to soliloquy about poor yorrik, moving to the center of the room triggers the trap, no chance to detect it.

They have plenty of opportunity to find and avoid it, as illuminated above. Yes, it is possible for them to fall into it, but only after passing several layers of contingency designed to produce outcomes that feel fair, even in the cases where they are undesirable.

Seriously, I don't understand how you run a game without having some sembalance of things happening. If the cracked teacup is just as potentially important as the necromantic grimoire is just as important as the loose flagstone then there is either a common story thread tying it all together, or you have no story whatsoever, created together or not.

All sorts of things happen, it just isn’t up to me how important they will end up being.

But if they tell you "I want to search for hidden items in this room" then they have told you what they want to accomplish (find any hidden items in the room) and how (search it).

Yes, and based on my best judgment and understanding of the rules, I believe that a passive Wisdom (Perception) check is the most appropriate way to resolve that action.

And since an investigation check can be used to search an area for hidden things, if they say "I want to investigate the room" then they have still told you what they want to accomplish (find hidden items or things in the room) and how (searching it)

Searching an entire room is not what I would consider reasonably specific. A whole room is rather more complex than a single wardrobe, so I’m going to need a bit more specificity to form an accurate mental picture of the action. I mean, take that hypothetical room with a trap that activates if you stand in the center of it. If I’m to assume you thoroughly search (by way of what you would call investigation) the entire room, I have to figure you would most likely move to the center of the room at some point in that process, right? But just imagine if I were to resolve the action accordingly:

“While searching the room, at some point you step on the trap in the center, and…”

“Wait! I didn’t say I stand in the center of the room, I just said I search it!”

And you know what? That would be a perfectly reasonable protest! Because “search the room” is not reasonably specific. I can’t really make a good estimation of whether or not you would step on the trap. So, I need the player to tell me what they are doing so I can make a good estimation of the outcome.

Which was exactly the point GMforpowergamers was making. Maybe you've forgotten their character is from Tyr, maybe they haven't declared where they are from yet, but by requiring the source of their knowledge before letting them roll, your are putting them in an awkward position of trying to guess.

They don’t have to guess. If they have already established a part of their backstory that seems relevant, they can lean on that. If not, or if they want to establish a new element of their backstory, they can make one up. Those are perfectly valid options.

But, also, would you just tell them that the sigil reminds them of something they saw in Tyr, or would you tell them what it is?

I would tell them it reminds them of something they saw in Tyr. That enables them to be the one to say “Thinking back to my time in Tyr, I try to remember where I recognize it from and what it is.” It’s like the the knowledge check equivalent of a telegraph.

If after saying that they recognize it, if they say "I have proficiency in Arcana" would you then reveal the rest of the information?

I would probably say something along the lines of “it sounds like you want to rely on your memory from Tyr to try and identify the sigil, and you want to add your Arcana proficiency if a check is necessary. Do I have that right?” Assuming they responded in the affirmative, I would either give them the rest of the information or call for an Intelligence check, noting that they are welcome to add that Arcana proficiency. Which option I would go with is hard to say confidently from the available context. Depends on what has already been established about their backstory and how likely they would have been to have come across the sigil based on those established details. I suppose, since it was mentioned before that mentioning having lived in Tyr would have been an auto-success, I’ll stand by that and say yes, they would succeed without a roll.

It should be. But it doesn't always work out that way. And when you are also having them make up things as they go along, who is to say anyone remembers anything.

Nobody’s perfect. Sometimes we forget stuff. C’est la vie.

So your goal, per Tetrasodium's point, is to have your players declare where they might have learned any given information, so that later if they tell you something different you can tell them "No, you said three sessions ago you studied religion in Candlekeep, you didn't study in Evermeet"? Because that was their basic thrust, that you have players declare their source of knowledge out loud so that they can't retcon it later and you and the other players can call them out or punish them if they try and retcon it.

Or does that have nothing to do with what we were talking about?

Ehh… nah, that’s not really my intent. I aim to enable on-the-fly character development, not to force characters’ backstories into a box.

 

[Charlaquin]

Just to step out of the endless replying I've been doing for a moment.

• I'm not against asking for clarification when a player asks to do something.
• I'm not against asking for methods when they are doing something actively vague, or with social skills that I feel need that response. I fully can get behind someone asking for "where do you hide" when a player asks to stealth. That is information you need.

Where I start getting a touch annoyed is when the players intent and action are obvious. If you just finished describing a door, and they hold up a die and say "investigation?" then they are clearly attempting to find traps or other hidden dangers in the door. If your goal isn't any sort of "gotcha" then that is plenty of information to allow the roll to proceed and adjudicate the results.

Additionally, if a player has declared their intent is to detect and avoid traps, and you force them to take "any action" before you let them attempt to detect traps, and their action leads to the trap triggering with no hope of detecting it. I find that to be a crappy move. You knew their intent was to detect the trap, setting it off without letting them attempt to detect it is just punishing them for guessing wrong on which actions were safe to take.

And finally, I just get annoyed with people who act like declaring an action without mentioning the game mechanics is somehow superior roleplaying to just using the game jargon to ask the same question. And there have been more than a few people in this rant thread who have responded with ideas of "training players" out of doing so, with the intent of making them "better players". I understand for some of you the D20 is a sign of failure, because it could fail, while you believe declaring your actions means you will be allowed to auto-succeed the majority of the time. That isn't how everyone plays. Most of us have a consensus at the table of what actions are likely to need a d20, because the outcome is uncertain. If convincing the King isn't something that is uncertain, because the players have the knowledge already, great. But if you make it certain because a player makes a really great speech that moves you... honestly less great. Because this prioritizes your players comfortable with speech-making instead of those who built a character who is supposed to be able to mechanically resolve uncertainty in social situations.

Frankly, I don't think the two styles are that far apart. But I think failing forward really resolves any issues with turning to the d20 when you as the player aren't sure of what exact action will get you the information or result you want.

Just wanted to say, it’s certainly not my intent to suggest that declaring actions without referring to mechanics is superior. It is how I prefer to declare actions as a player, and it is how I prefer players to declare actions when I DM, but I don’t believe my preferences are better than anyone else’s. I’m also not completely inflexible in how I expect players in games I run to declare actions, but for my own processes I do need to know, to a certain degree of specificity, what the player wants to accomplish and how their character tries to accomplish it. A player who is either unwilling or unable to do that for some reason really wouldn’t be able to play at my table, because I wouldn’t be able to resolve their actions. Maybe I’ve just been lucky, but I haven’t yet experienced such Total incompatibility of play preferences in real life. In fact, my experience has been that players who may at first be skeptical about my style quickly end up enjoying it, once they’ve seen it in action for a bit. But if I have given the impression that I think this way of doing things is superior to how other people prefer to run their games, I apologize for the misunderstanding. That is certainly not how I ever intend to come across.

 

[Reynard]

Refusing to say, "I check the door for traps," instead of "I roll Investigate! ::clatter::" seems like like a weird hill to die on.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But the idea that it wasn’t mentioned in the description is an assumption you’re bringing to the table. If it would be guaranteed that the character would know the thing, and the player couldn’t know the thing themselves, then it’s my responsibility as DM to tell the player the thing. That should be a given.

when i said that earlier 1 poster told me it was railroading and another told me i was taking away agency from the player...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

By shaping up, do you mean leave?

If a DM every did anything remotely like this to anyone at the table, I'm gone from that table.

There is NO justification for a DM deliberately humiliating/punishing a player in this manner. It's the kind of nonsense that drives people from the hobby.

I wouldn't leave... I would laugh. I would assume they were jokeing. I could not take that DM seriously

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Maybe I’ve just been lucky, but I haven’t yet experienced such Total incompatibility of play preferences in real life. In fact, my experience has been that players who may at first be skeptical about my style quickly end up enjoying it, once they’ve seen it in action for a bit.

I would bet that no matter what your style is, this is something we all have in common...

We all have players who at first be skeptical about our style and quickly enjoy it... if they don't they leave. there is a self fulfilling part of this too... we find new players and teach them our ways, we group with like minded players, and most important anyone trying can find fun in all the styles.

Now we should be able to discus the pro's and con's but we often end up in arguments.

 

[Jack Daniel]

If a DM every did anything remotely like this to anyone at the table, I'm gone from that table.

With so many forum-warriors routinely threatening to leave all the hypothetical tables in a self-righteous huff of indignation, it's truly a wonder that the hypothetical game-tables still have any hypothetical players at all.