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

[Charlaquin]

Well hopefully, you let the player know "tablecloth or not..." or clarified if the player asked.

Or at the least, made sure there isn't a disconnect, where the player thinks under the table is a good hiding spot and you don't.

Yeah, for sure.

 

[Mort]

i'm confused by what some people think is and isn't certain a lot in this thread...

so far hiding under a table
hiding in a closet/cabinet/pantry
finding a hidden compartment
finding a false bottom
attacking/killing very under level CR creatures

I think thats all I can think of...

This is why going with the characters skill (against a DC or an opposed check) is often the safe bet.

Quite often, there is a disconnect between the DMs perception of the situation and the players. Something the DM may think is obvious, may be completely opaque to the players. Conversely, something the players think is a great idea may seem dumb to the DM.

While it is always best to talk it out and make sure everyone sees eye to eye, sometimes just defaulting to the "character" is an expert and should be treated as one - works best.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So this is a very unexpected description of "immersion" because of the several problems I have with you described style of play, the fact that it is un-immersive is my biggest problem with it.

and this is why it's so hard to have conversations about this... we both 100% believe in our hearts we and only we are on the side of immersion... I think that your way would break mine constantly.

Now, I know immersion is often a vague term that means different things to different people, but to me when I talk about immersive play I am meaning the following:

I am going to try to go through this with you but I warn you I doubt this ends well...

a) The majority of things said at the table end up in the transcript of play.

I don't understand your transcript of play...

do you mean we aren't counting the fart and monte python jokes or the aside about my fiancé saying goodnight? or do you mean something else?

If i read this right and that is what you mean then I agree that once games start we should keep interruptions to a minimum... but since we are all adults with lives that is never going to be what it was in highschool and college.

That is the less OOC talk you have and the more IC talk you have the more immersion you have.

now this is what I was afraid of... describing actions or asking questions about the world IMO are still being immersive, even if they are OOC (again dumb jokes and puns not so much)

Something like "I use diplomacy on the guard to persuade him to not report me" is an inherently non-immersive statement because it draws me out of character and is a statement that isn't part of the transcript of play.

how is I use diplomacy on the guard any more or less immersive then I use charm person on the guard? my wizard doesn't say "I use charm person on you"... as long as it is about the game I think it belongs.

the part I think we disagree on is micro scale and macro scale...

if I read a book (or watch something on netflix) and there is a scene were there is a tense back and forth between the guards and the main character that is cool... if they set up there are guards he says he can talk past them then we cut to in the base I can infer that he talked past them... the amount of details don't matter...

this 'transcript of play' just skips the same part your players want to.

Someone will have to fill in what happened there with narration in order for there to be a transcript.

or... as I just said we just skip that scene (maybe it makes it in the directors cut of the movie but not the theatrical cut)

b) The majority of non-narrative transcripts are in the first person and quite often players are engaging in method acting techniques to immerse themselves in the role.

oh I don't need method acting for immersion... infact I can have someone narrate full 3rd person.

c) The majority of the players imagination of the scene is occuring in first person perspective as if they were looking through the eyes of the character as opposed to imagining the scene as if they were in the audience watching it or worse not even imagining the scene at all (because there is no need to).

i don't know if I follow... I mean if there character is there they should be seeing it 1st person... but sometimes (even if we know not a great idea) we split the party and if we do some players ARE the audience then.

I won't quote it but you go on to describe from here how everyone is having more fun because they don't feel like there is an autofail if they do something wrong, and I feel like you have this binary "either I play my way or else it's antagonistic gotcha gaming".

no not at all infact i keep repeating there are good and bad games of both styles...

if I can narrate myself an auto success or an auto fail without ever picking up a d20 then we have MY immersion break when the uncharismatic unskilled character can out talk the one that is charismatic and skilled if the player can.

in fact this was example 1 where we hit a problem. We ran into (at begining of 3.0 and even into 3.5) players gaming the system... min maxing by taking low or no skill in things they knew they could talk the DM into not rolling and useing those pts (pt buy stats, high rolls. skillpts feat choices ect) instead on things the DM would roll for... then other players that could not talk around it had put pts in things and itt broke the narrative...
the charasmatic characte never the face the low cha characters were

It's not like if you play my way and you talk to the guard that I'm going to ignore the character test or that I'm out to get you or something.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That seems to be one of the disconnects in this thread. I'm not at all sure some of the posters in this thread would accept "best location I can find..." as a valid action declaration (not specific enough?).

exactly

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That’s likewise why I don’t use flanking.

I was surprised when I recently found anyone that uses that optional flanking rule. Apparently it's actually common enough that I've run into a few players that didn't know that it was not a regular rule!

 

[Swarmkeeper]

i'm confused by what some people think is and isn't certain a lot in this thread...

so far hiding under a table
hiding in a closet/cabinet/pantry
finding a hidden compartment
finding a false bottom
attacking/killing very under level CR creatures

I think thats all I can think of...

Let me help...

Those things are actually not always certain. It depends on the situation and what the player declares as the goal and approach for their PC.

 

[iserith]

Let me help...

Those things are actually not always certain. It depends on the situation and what the player declares as the goal and approach for their PC.

Yes, and everyone here is imagining different context surrounding those things in order to make those determinations, just like a player and DM might be at the table. Only by hashing it out can everyone be sure they are on the same page.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

This is why going with the characters skill (against a DC or an opposed check) is often the safe bet.

Quite often, there is a disconnect between the DMs perception of the situation and the players. Something the DM may think is obvious, may be completely opaque to the players. Conversely, something the players think is a great idea may seem dumb to the DM.

While it is always best to talk it out and make sure everyone sees eye to eye, sometimes just defaulting to the "character" is an expert and should be treated as one - works best.

Except the DM is the one setting the DC if they have determined there is uncertainty regarding the goal and approach of the PC in the situation.

It's actually far better to get auto-success.

As for the table with no tablecloth - if there is some disconnect between player and DM about the scene, I should hope the DM steps in and indicates "yeah, to be clear, anyone looking down will see your PC under there... there is no tablecloth to hide your PC... is that where you really want them to hide?" The player, now able to make a fully informed decision, can choose somewhere else to hide, if they wish.

 

[iserith]

Another thing that's running through many posts here appears to be this difference:

Some players are effectively asking what they need to say to be "allowed" to roll an ability check. Sometimes they just come out and say what they want to roll.

Other players are addressing the fictional context by taking action and trying to avoid making an ability check if they can. They'd rather automatically succeed and, if that's not possible, then the roll is their insurance.

If you are the kind of player who sees ability checks as a means to do things, perhaps even the only means, then trying to avoid making them is going to seem weird. After all, how will I ever get to do anything if I don't roll? So let me roll.

Contrast with the other players who get to try whatever they want and only roll when what they want to do has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. Why would I ask to roll? I'd rather win this without one.

 

[Mort]

Except the DM is the one setting the DC if they have determined there is uncertainty regarding the goal and approach of the PC in the situation.

It's actually far better to get auto-success.

In games where the DM is actually good at doing this (Setting good yet broad goal/approach parameters)? Sure,

When (IME larger % of games), instead, I have to play guess what the DM is thinking? Yuck, not so much.

As for the table with no tablecloth - if there is some disconnect between player and DM about the scene, I should hope the DM steps in and indicates "yeah, to be clear, anyone looking down will see your PC under there... there is no tablecloth to hide your PC... is that where you really want them to hide?" The player, now able to make a fully informed decision, can choose somewhere else to hide, if they wish.

Sure, it is ALWAYS best when the player and DM are on the same page.