Chaosmancer
Legend
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?