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

[GMforPowergamers]

Out of curiosity, do you feel like the way you separate player and character "skill" regarding task resolution impacts your sense of immersion?

yes. Very much it helps with immersion. again this style did start as a reaction to bad actors (DM and Players) who no longer game with us... if we didn't find the benefits (more immersion, more variance in characters, more fun descriptions, more player engagement) there would be no reason to continue it.

Do you even want a sense of immersion?

yes very much. it is most likely the #2 reason I promote this style is to help immersion. It doesn't matter that I know how to talk the baron into it... I am immersed in the character and if the character can.

What about role play

again very much so... in fact again I found we had more variable role play more fun moments once we did this for a couple of campaigns... once a player learns that they can't accidently auto fail a scene if they say the wrong things we have found people are MUCH more likely to try new things.

Even though in-character soliloquies won't impact social encounters, does your group engage in them anyway?

it depends... on our mood and the hour of the night but yes. Again I have found it increased. before this Joe would not play a bard or warlock or sorcerer because he felt he couldn't pull off a high cha, and if he tried he 100% would want someone else to be the face... after a couple of tries he found he LOVES playing the face. Same with Ross.

Ironically the reveres for Kurt who always was the theif (later rogue) weather through multi or not. why you ask, becuse he is real good at narrating finding hidden things, and in real life can read most dms on when traps or tricks are coming... but once the character skill mattered more he could branch out and not feel he was letting us down.

 

[Charlaquin]

It depends, but generally I don't give advantage and disadvantage very often.

For example, if I were to give advantage or disadvantage on perception, it wouldn't be because of how they described looking, it would be becuase of the environment. If they are in a heavy fog or a rainstorm, they are going to get disadvantage.

Also, I tend to forget that a crowbar gives advantage on strength checks.

But, before people accuse me of being unfair, my players use the help action and work together 95% of the time with all skill actions that I can't force them not to use the help action on (usually just perception, Stealth, insight and knowledge skills) so the vast majority of the time, they are rolling with advantage anyways.

I’m kinda with you on this. I mean, I do try to be fairly generous with advantage, but I award it based on circumstances, not descriptions.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My entire view of the game? My view of the game is based on what I read in the rules books. Is your disagreement with me or with the rules?

mostly your reading of them (although that isn't to say there are not some rules no matter how you interpret them that I don't like)

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Except it isn't driven by narrative, it is driven by mechanics.

thats funny I always describe myself as narrative focused...

 

[iserith]

mostly your reading of them (although that isn't to say there are not some rules no matter how you interpret them that I don't like)

It's fair not to like or agree with either, but I think you'd be hard pressed to show that what I'm saying lacks coherency or support from the rules themselves.

 

[Mannahnin]

could... not do. if one has one then you may need to know what one they climb I already said that but nothing in the set up had that... no traps, no poison ivy, no 'if you fall X' so with little to no consequences I would not waste time with asking for clarification... please if you want to know how my games run don't add gotchas.

if there was a diffrence, if it changed anything but the image I would have gotten more info... however I also would not set up that type of situation without forshadowing it.

and again they might be... but in the example they were not so it didn't matter.

Ok, so in YOUR version of Celebrim's scenario, none of the four walls had any traps or hazards. It was all just colorful description/red herrings.

But do you get my point, finally, about how if any one of those four hazards DID exist, the player's choice about which wall to climb up IS meaningful, and I shouldn't take it away from them? And if I do, I either remove the danger or force them into it, which is exactly the kind of "gotcha" my adjudication style is designed to prevent?

so me asking "why that wall?" to be sure I understand is taking away their autonomy and bad
you asking "how do you climb the wall and what one" to be sure YOU understand is not?

Pretty much. Because I'm not putting words in their mouth/making choices for them. The way you've described your play means you're giving them free info about there not being a hazard, and choosing for them which wall they go up if they just hold up the die and say "Athletics?"

Although I will decline to call your invitation to call your way of running it bad. If that's fun and functional for your table, it's definitionally not bad. I just don't think it's optimal, and would definitely be less fun for me.

it seems odd that the people who would have to ask my players LOTs of questions think it is bad if I ask 1 or 2 per month (when in YOUR game im not sure we could get through a single room description without you asking for clarification from some people I play with)

If I had to ask your players a bunch of questions, it sounds like the only reason would be because your group has practiced a play style where they largely don't have to describe what their characters actually do, and they're used to you filling that in for them with description after they roll.

but that information is only out of game. I trust my players not to take that information in game.

Heck sometimes when we break for food or drink or rest rooms (although not really now online) we used to jokeingly have 'cut scenes' that the player could see but the characters could not 100% with NPCs... sometimes main villains.

Nothing wrong with cut scenes. I sometimes use them too, in the right game. I trust my players too. But if I tell them that the all the fancy walls they just skipped past had no hazards and were just red herrings, don't you think that will impact their decision making if and when they encounter another similar situation?

yes in the very specific situation I may need more info then they volunteer. At no point did I ever say that my way 100% never needed clarification I said no where near as often as your way.

Wut. On what basis do you think you can judge "no where near as often as my way"? If my players are accustomed to describing what their characters actually do, it would seem less likely that I need to constantly ask them, no?

 

[Charlaquin]

but the same could be said about cutting wood or playing basketball or (not really) fixxing a car (I can't do that one never could but I will use it as an example anyway)

my parents were car peeps my mom slightly less then my dad... but my Dad was a mechanic for 40ish years. He can describe how to take apart an engine (as long as it's pre computer integration) and put it back togather but he can't physically do it any more.

Yes, so a certain degree of abstraction is necessary for actions that require specialized expertise that the players (and DM, for that matter) lack. Lock picking is a good example: I don’t know how to pick locks, and I don’t expect most of my players do either; even if any did, I’m pretty sure modern locks work rather differently than medievalesque locks would. So, I don’t expect players to describe the exact motions of trying to pick a lock in detail. But I do need to know their goal and approach. And, yes, if there’s a locked door and the rogue’s player says “I try to pick it,” I do have enough content to understand that their goal is to get the door unlocked and their approach is to pick the lock with their thieves’ tools, and so would accept that action declaration. In contrast, a big dungeon room full of stuff? I do not have enough context to understand what “I search the room” means the player’s goal or approach are.

so again... you can tell me how you look for a trap, how you hide in the shadow, how you hide in the closet, how you hide under the tab;e/bed... it's still a skill check

I disagree. A check is used to resolve uncertainty, and if you try to hide under a table, it’s really not uncertain whether or not someone will be able to see you.

 

[Reynard]

yes. Very much it helps with immersion. again this style did start as a reaction to bad actors (DM and Players) who no longer game with us... if we didn't find the benefits (more immersion, more variance in characters, more fun descriptions, more player engagement) there would be no reason to continue it.


yes very much. it is most likely the #2 reason I promote this style is to help immersion. It doesn't matter that I know how to talk the baron into it... I am immersed in the character and if the character can.

again very much so... in fact again I found we had more variable role play more fun moments once we did this for a couple of campaigns... once a player learns that they can't accidently auto fail a scene if they say the wrong things we have found people are MUCH more likely to try new things.

it depends... on our mood and the hour of the night but yes. Again I have found it increased. before this Joe would not play a bard or warlock or sorcerer because he felt he couldn't pull off a high cha, and if he tried he 100% would want someone else to be the face... after a couple of tries he found he LOVES playing the face. Same with Ross.

Ironically the reveres for Kurt who always was the theif (later rogue) weather through multi or not. why you ask, becuse he is real good at narrating finding hidden things, and in real life can read most dms on when traps or tricks are coming... but once the character skill mattered more he could branch out and not feel he was letting us down.

Interesting. thank you for the response.

thats funny I always describe myself as narrative focused...

With your above responses, I can see that -- but I think because your narrative and immersion comes AFTER the roll, it might be a little strange for folks to see it that way.

Anyway, I appreciate you sticking with the discussion. I feel like I learned something about a style of play I don't think I have ever actually seen at the table.

 

[Maxperson]

yeah the trap here seems to be that I need to poke everything with a 10ft stick... and I am no longer intrested in that type of play

Nope. That's a really, REALLY blatant misinterpretation of what we are saying.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I’m kinda with you on this. I mean, I do try to be fairly generous with advantage, but I award it based on circumstances, not descriptions.

i find myslef getting stingier and stingier with advantage as of late... mostly since my players have a knack for getting it... I might want to go back through a roll20 log but it would not surprise me if half to two thirds of all rolls get made with either advantage or disadvantage and way more of those advantage