Okay, but just stating "these are how rules work" doesn't mean I think your rules are good. I can still accept that you will rule that way without being required to ignore things I see as problematic or not working as intended in your rules. Just as I would hope if a player in my game felt that the rules I was making didn't work well or had problematic elements, they would tell me about it.
Ok, so you don’t like the way I interpret the rules for perception. Cool. Glad we spent a dozen posts getting that figured out.
Because when I first suggested it you seemed utterly mystified by the idea.
But if it is later then the idol wasn't important. It could be retroactive foreshadowing, but in the moment it still wasn't important. And you knew it wasn't important, you just went back and made it important later.
So, again, you know what is and isn't important in the moment. Whether you decide to change that later doesn't matter.
At this point, all I can figure is that you’re using a definition of “important” that is alien to me. Sorry I can’t help you understand.
Have you ever been told about the difference between hearing and listening? I got that lecture a lot growing up. It is the exact same concept. There is a difference between seeing and looking.
Yes, I’m aware. I believe the intent of the passive check mechanics is for them to apply when a character is looking/listening not just seeing/hearing. That’s why you can’t use them while engaged in another task.
You don't have to, you prep locations and there is SOMETHING going on at that location, or else the players wouldn't be there. You don't just place your characters in a random place for no reason with nothing going on. I refuse to believe anyone does that.
Yes, things are going on in the locations. Which of those things will end up mattering to the story we create together by playing the game, and which won’t? I don’t know, and can’t know until we actually play.
Not if it is actually random. All random treasure does is tell you it is there. The only way to make random treasure important is to retroactively make up something that makes it important. Which you should really never do in my opinion, because that means you didn't even roll the treasure until they were about to get it, which I've never had a good experience with.
No, I do not generate treasure randomly when the players find it, with the exception of pocket change carried by humanoid enemies. Yes, I do come up with information connecting the stuff I generate or place to the locations they’re in. Since I can’t seem to understand what you mean when you say “important,” I can’t tell you if any of that information is what you would consider “important” or not. I can tell you that I have no idea what if any of that information the players will learn, or how they will use it, or if it will end up impacting the story we create together in any meaningful way.
No you remember the plan pretty much exactly as I laid it out. If you warned them, then they have a chance to come up with a different plan. Probably one involving fire and smoke to drive the goblin out of the room, since there is nothing else I can imagine that would not massively risk the player's health in the attempt.
Seems like a clever plan.
Right, I disagree with this ruling. You have ignored the player's intent, because they happened to guess incorrectly at which action was safe. If they had move to stand left of center of the room to search for traps, they would have been safe, and they would have had their chance to find traps. Instead, they set off the trap with no potential to find it. (I'm ignoring passive perception, because they had no active hand in that. They simply get handed a description of the room based off their passive perception. That has nothing to do with their actions or their decisions, unless you want to count character creation, which I don't)
I have not ignored their intent at all. They wanted to find out if there was a trap, and arguably they will. Since the trap is set off by standing in the center of the room, standing in the center of the room will result in the trap being set off. I don’t understand how this statement can be disputed, it is tautological.
1) Telegraphing fails, as you have said. You telegraphed enough they knew there were traps, and therefore stated an intent to find those traps safely. An intent you ignore, in favor of their action nullifying it and triggering the trap.
Again, I didn’t ignore that intent at all. I understand they intend to find out if there’s traps; their approach to achieving that intent happens to be one that will inevitably result in the trap being set off. I don’t see any other way that action could be resolved.
2) Passive perception is not a player choice or a player action. It is just the description of the room. You might as well say that they have a chance not to touch a fire because you told them there was a fire in the center of the room.
Well, it’s a choice to keep watch for danger while traveling or exploring, instead of, say, navigating, making a map, looking for secret doors, etc.
3) A chance to avoid the trap after triggering it was not their intent. Their intent was to find it before triggering it. At this point you have told them that they have failed, that for all their potential caution and attempts to avoid this exact scenario, they said the wrong action declaration, nullified their intent, and now must desperately try to salvage the situation.
Again, arguably they have been quite successful at finding out if there’s a trap. But, yeah, sometimes you make a decision and that decision has an outcome that is negative for your character. It is important to me that those negative outcomes be a result of your decisions, not random chance. Accordingly, I endeavor to give the players the tools they need to make informed decisions, and I expect them to give me the tools I need to determine the outcomes of those decisions.
4) Traps give saving throws regardless of the players actions or choices, this is still ignoring their intent and is actually the ultimate fail condition of their chosen action. I don't think you get credit for following the rules of the game though.
K
Their goal is clear. Why assume an approach that would cause them to fail in their goal to search a room? What approach could even possibly fail to search a room that wasn't a ridiculous thing no sane person would try? You know which checks apply, either intelligence or wisdom. And I'm not certain why you need to change the difficulty whether I'm going clockwise, grid search, or counter-clockwise.
I
don’t want to assume an approach that would cause them to fail. Nor do I want to assume an approach that could not fail. I don’t want to assume an approach
at all. That’s why I expect them to tell me their approach.
And why would a thorough search of the room, that rolled well, not find a concealed door? If the door can be found by looking in a specific spot, and you look through the entire room, then you will find it, there isn't even a question.
Depends where and how you search. I need a clear and reasonably specific declaration of goal and approach to determine that. “Search the whole room” is not reasonably specific in my opinion because there’s practically infinite ways that could be done. I need something specific enough that if we both play it out like little movies in our heads, those movies would look pretty similar. Otherwise, we are likely to have misunderstandings as we imagine entirely different narratives.
And it allows me to not ignore the intent of the players when they declare actions. Which is my preference.
Cool. You do you.
You never get zero chance of failure, unless you have read the DM's notes or their mind.
That's something I don't understand about your position. You always assume you will have the correct answer and therefore have zero chance of failure and 100% chance of success, but that doesn't happen. You always have a chance of failure.
When I play as a player, I often succeed without a roll by describing actions that eliminate either any reasonable chance of failure, any potential consequences for failure, or both. In my experience, it’s not that hard to do.
Yeah, it is terrible when someone adopts a role and thinks what they would do based on that role. /sarcasm
Honestly, I've read a few bad character backstories, but most of them have been good, and most of them have been short. And talking before the game always me to easily seed things into the game early, instead of waiting for them to randomly justify something and then I think that sounds cool and then do something with it.
But also, frankly, I can't play the game without figuring out who the person is I'm playing, unless I want to just play myself. And I'm a terrible and terribly boring person. I don't want to play me, I've been me. And there is no lack of growth in play. You can absolutely grow as a character, because most people write flaws into their character to overcome, generally by having that flaw bite them in the butt repeatedly during play. Something you aren't going to see happen with blank slates who have no personality of backstory, IME.
Alright. We have different experiences and different preferences with regards to pre-written backstories vs. ones that are backfilled over the course of play.
How is whether or not you are within the zone of vision that is most likely to see you not involved in the decision on where to hide? How is whether or not you can blend your shape or color against that object not involved in the decision on where to hide?
These things absolutely play into that choice. And since these are factors that a +17 character would know, that an IRL non-expert wouldn't, it is fair to assume the character knows more about what they can and should do.
I just fundamentally disagree. There’s no great skill involved in deciding whether to hide under the ogre’s table or in the pantry; that’s something I think everyone who has played hide and seek as a child has probably picked up. The +17 becomes relevant when and if a stealth check becomes necessary.
