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

[Maxperson]

You and max said I would just have them say "Its' just a perception or search check"

Since you got it wrong the first time when you said I accused you and apparently missed my first correction, I will quote what I said so that there's no confusion.

"I think he's saying that he doesn't get why people should have to say that they look behind the tapestry rather than just roll to find it."

That's not an accusation. It's a guess as to what you might have been saying.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Providing challenges to players is not the same as "gotcha" DMing. You are making too many assumptions about DMs posting here.

Plus, I thought I told you I disengaged?

View attachment 257066

except the same way YOU don't want to be accused of "gotcha' DMing... even though from what you have said that is what some of us took from it... is the same way I don't want to be accused of adding things to player declarations (especially when I said I don't)

 

[Maxperson]

right... but again, you were trying to use the context and added something I didn't say... but in a thread where I am being told I can ONLY do what I say by adding things to what my players say... even as I say it's fade to black.

He brought up context, not me. I only guessed what I thought you had been saying. And as @iserith said to you earlier, we are different people. Just because one person says something, doesn't mean we all are saying that thing.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Since you got it wrong the first time when you said I accused you and apparently missed my first correction, I will quote what I said so that there's no confusion.

"I think he's saying that he doesn't get why people should have to say that they look behind the tapestry rather than just roll to find it."

That's not an accusation. It's a guess as to what you might have been saying.

reread what I just wrote above this

right... but again, you were trying to use the context and added something I didn't say... but in a thread where I am being told I can ONLY do what I say by adding things to what my players say... even as I say it's fade to black.

I am not saying that you are some evil vile monster... I am saying that you (and swarm) just did what some people (and again I didn't keep track of who) accuse me of... and THEY call it railroading and DO accuse of taking away agency,

 

[GMforPowergamers]

He brought up context, not me. I only guessed what I thought you had been saying. And as @iserith said to you earlier, we are different people. Just because one person says something, doesn't mean we all are saying that thing.

nobody said you are saying the same thing... but you are in the conversation.

So when you do something and I point and say "Hey remember when people accused me of adding to statements"

 

[Maxperson]

nobody said you are saying the same thing... but you are in the conversation.

So when you do something and I point and say "Hey remember when people accused me of adding to statements"

The problem is that when you do that in response to me, it implies that I'm saying the same thing.

If you're in a conversation with 10 people talking about farm animals and 2 are saying how crappy horses are, but I never brought up horses at all, it doesn't make sense to bring up their horse complains in response to me talking about pigs and bacon.

This conversation with you has had a format that has gone something like this.

You: "Farm animals are pretty good. When it comes to horses, you just saddle them up and off you go!"
Person 1: "Horses aren't that easy. If you don't know how to ride, it doesn't really matter if there's a saddle. They are still dangerous."
Person 2: "I hate horses. They smell and have flies that bite. How could you like being bitten by flies?!"
Me: "Pigs are pretty good, too. Bacon and ham are delicious."
You: "I'm getting sick and tired of people telling me how bad horses are when I didn't say anything about flies or danger. They aren't either of those things to me."
Me: "Dude, I didn't say anything about horses."
You: "But other people did and you are in the same conversation."

Regardless of whether I'm in the same conversation or not, even if I also don't like horses because one almost ran off a cliff with me on its back(true story), that doesn't mean it's appropriate to respond to me with things that they have said to you.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The problem is that when you do that in response to me, it implies that I'm saying the same thing.

If you're in a conversation with 10 people talking about farm animals and 2 are saying how crappy horses are, but I never brought up horses at all, it doesn't make sense to bring up their horse complains in response to me talking about pigs and bacon.

except all 10 of us are talking and it isn't 'crappy horses' its "Gm dooes X" multi times from 1 or more of the ten then you go and do the thing that I have been accused of and I point it out "Hey rmeember twenty minutes ago when people said I would do X"

but at this point we are not just off the rant we are off D&D and this has become personal... so I am going to try to stop so the thread doesn't get locked...

if anyone wants to talk pros and cons of forcing players out of there comfort zones I am game... if any one wants to talk pros and cons of letting players call skills as part of there declaration of intent I am game...

This conversation with you has had a format that has gone something like this.

no it didint

 

[Mannahnin]

the fact that I used the wrong word (obviously not understanding) wasn't the issue but being told again and again that i was lying and stealing agency...

No one has accused you of lying.

I don't understand... we skip conversations all the time in games.

SOmetimes at my table we will have a year or two pass over the course of a game night... and sometimes inbetween games. We don't track every conversation.

doesn't come up because if the players were not interested in details before it is rare for them to BOTH want to go back and get those details AND still no provide them... in fact i am at aloss to even make a fictional example of play were a player uses a skill roll to skip the dialog of a scene but then wants to play out knowing what they said... can you give an example?

I'm not talking about game dialogue, I'm talking about the real life dialogue between you and me.

I think I'm done with this discussion, though. It seems too difficult to communicate.

 

[Mannahnin]

never once did I decide for someone... not once. please show me where I did.

In post 325, your reply to Celebrim's post 309.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

In post 325, your reply to Celebrim's post 309.

I don't see it... not one time did I add anything. please be more clear about what you think I added to who...

no ... just no
trying to say you have some handed down on high truth that proves a diffrent way of playing wrong is not helping at all

the funny part is that if we really did sit down at gencon and play at the same table I doubt we would notice...

and here we go


great. I don't care what amount of detail the player gives I care how well they can climb (and if it matters)

yes but if someone asked to climb the sheer blank surface it would trigger (what I say all the time) "wait what, why?"

no but I would only set the DC for the easiest unless a player gave me a good reason to try a harder one.

yes... some choices cann grant advantage. off the top of my head 'aid another' and in some games I play in (but not ever ones I run) flanking.

again... in the situation were there is an easy way and a hard way and someone says they want to take the hard way I will ask out of game why and if they are sure, then let them take the harder route... I will defualt to the easy route if not.

yes but the less it happens the better I find games...

I am not looking for prefect 100% character... I just want to maximize the amount of character and minimize the amount of player.
there are plenty of examples I myself will give if you like where I fell short... times that player skill DID even in the last year (2 decades into do this) i can name at least once.

no nothing like that...

and it isn't railroading (but it is sometimes helping players remember lore or facts or mechanics)

lets take both MY and my friend Matts games (we alternate 2 weeks my game 2 weeks his)
Matt has a house rule about lava... it is death no matter what. no "but I am immune to fire" no "but I hold my breath" touching lava even just your finger tip is a save or die effect that you get no save for.
I don't use that rule. Lava deals MASSIVE fire damage and you will sink slowly in it and be 'grabbed' if you fall into it in my game.

so if next week a player in Matts game says "I jump down onto the lava and hope for the best" matt would remind him he knows better that will be death... just or die no save.
if 2 weeks later the party was standing near lava and a player says "Hey if he throw the red dragon in the lava that auto kills him" I will remind them that yes we are very different games... the dragon can bathe in lava for all i care... it's like a hot bath.


neither of us will stop the player from trying if they want... but we will warn "this is what you would know"

now that is a crazy example (how often do you run into lava) but earlier someone (I don't think it was you) had an example of a player slapping a queen like she was a hysterical woman in an old movie. I would tell them "Before you do that, you do have a good persuasion, and you know that is most likely not going to work"
in fact I would rather they 'diplomancy' the queen then fall into a trap trying to pull off an old movie cliche and fail...



how am I metagaming?

not once.... wait no the tarasque planet... okay 1 time I was accused of adversarial DMing... in general I hear the oppisit complaint I am too lenient