D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[AnotherGuy]

They can. But that's a way to narrate a failed check to climb, not a separate secret roll.

Noticing stuff, as a separate mechanic, shouldn't be in any game. Gating info behind skill checks negates both player exploration of environment (in a classic dungeoncrawl) and simple clarification of setting via dialogue (in a more expansive trad, neotrad, or narrative game) to do what, reward people who invest character resources in Wisdom/Perception? Get the heck out of here with that.

So in the case of 5e you're saying Insight and Perception are not a good mechanic for the game.
Just to explore this idea further...

Would that remove trap noticing since a Dexterity Save etc can deal with the narration of a failed check to spot the trap in time?
Would that remove the Insight check for obtaining say the ideals/bonds/traits/flaws of a person the PCs are engaged with in dialogue? Just give that info to the PCs since its considered low stakes, right?
What about using Perception to notice an invisible creature - or can that be rolled into disADV for initiative/attack rolls etc? Or is this not the kinda info you're referring to in the above post?

In the PbtA games they have Discern Reality moves right? How does that compare to 5e's Perception/Insight?

 

[zakael19]

Certainly. Interestingness is a valid thing to use--but it is both subjective and, more importantly, relative to the players. Which is something that has been consistently nixed as an unacceptable no-no in this thread. The process being described by others (not Stonetop's) needs to be independent, needs to continuously preserve the independence of the world from the PCs, so interestingness has already been forbidden as a decision-making tool.

Oh for sure, I was just providing an answer from my seat!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have provided clear answers ezekiel. If my answers are not adequate for you that isn't condescension on my part

No, you have not. Repeatedly. You don't get to declare that your answers are understandable to me, and thus I am somehow in the wrong for not "liking" them.

For being so on about others not telling you what to think, you have been surprisingly happy to do so when it suits you.

 

[Bedrockgames]

@hawkeyefan is being explicit about his request because each time you’ve responded previously it’s been generic phrases. @pemerton has provided detailed (perhaps overly so ) examples of handling situations in a pretty concrete manner; as has many others here. We’re asking for the same sort of courtesy.

No, you are demanding. There is a huge difference. I have given you guys my answers. You can accept them. Or you can reject them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, you have not. Repeatedly. You don't get to declare that your answers are understandable to me, and thus I am somehow in the wrong for not "liking" them.

For being so on about others not telling you what to think, you have been surprisingly happy to do so when it suits you.

I have Ezekiel. And like I said, if they are insufficient for you, fair. You don't have to accept my answers. But demanding I answer questions exactly how you want, and accusing me of not being specific, when I feel I have gotten specifics is getting very tiresome. When Hawkeye asked in his last post, I answered, but I also addressed the final sentence int he post, which I think is indicative of how you guys frequently treat these conversations as interrogations. Perhaps you don't realize you are doing it. But it is very annoying

 

[zakael19]

No, you are demanding. There is a huge difference. I have given you guys my answers. You can accept them. Or you can reject them.

Can I reject it as a non-answer or insufficient to understand your judgement process in a situation?

Edit: taking your answer above to be “yes, and that’s the best you’re getting.” No point in further down this thread.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Can I reject it as a non-answer or insufficient to understand your judgement process in a situation?

You can reject it on whatever grounds you want. I not objecting to the rejection. I am objecting to the demanding tone

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I have Ezekiel. And like I said, if they are insufficient for you, fair. You don't have to accept my answers. But demanding I answer questions exactly how you want, and accusing me of not being specific, when I feel I have gotten specifics is getting very tiresome. When Hawkeye asked in his last post, I answered, but I also addressed the final sentence int he post, which I think is indicative of how you guys frequently treat these conversations as interrogations. Perhaps you don't realize you are doing it. But it is very annoying

Conversely: It feels like you aren't even remotely taking the discussion seriously, and instead treating it as an exercise in saying whatever you feel like saying and writing off any question you don't really feel like answering. When clarification is requested, instead of actually clarifying anything, I just get the exact same words, repeated over and over again.

I cannot come to understand something if someone uses a bunch of words that don't mean anything to me, and then when I say, "I don't understand what that means, can you be more specific?" and they tell me "No. I'm just going to say the exact same thing over again."

 

[Bedrockgames]

Conversely: It feels like you aren't even remotely taking the discussion seriously, and instead treating it as an exercise in saying whatever you feel like saying and writing off any question you don't really feel like answering. When clarification is requested, instead of actually clarifying anything, I just get the exact same words, repeated over and over again.

That isn't what I am doing. You guys frequently jump on this when the conversation isn't going your way. But that isn't what I am doing

I cannot come to understand something if someone uses a bunch of words that don't mean anything to me, and then when I say, "I don't understand what that means, can you be more specific?" and they tell me "No. I'm just going to say the exact same thing over again."

Like I said, I have been pretty clear. If you don't understand what I am saying, I don't quite know what to say.

 

[Bedrockgames]

They can. But that's a way to narrate a failed check to climb, not a separate secret roll.

Noticing stuff, as a separate mechanic, shouldn't be in any game. Gating info behind skill checks negates both player exploration of environment (in a classic dungeoncrawl) and simple clarification of setting via dialogue (in a more expansive trad, neotrad, or narrative game) to do what, reward people who invest character resources in Wisdom/Perception? Get the heck out of here with that.

I wouldnt' say it should not be in any game, but I must agree that not having skills for this stuff encourages more interaction with the environment. The same with skills like gather information or even bluff. If you don't have things like that, Players have to look for information by talking to people. And they have to try to get information out of people by telling a convincing lie. You notice this right away if you go from a WOTC version of D&D back to an older edition that either didn't have these things, had them merely as options, or used them in a much different way