Search results

Yeah, that makes sense. But the question still remains. If the GM tells them that they notice no trap, is the PC still allowed to suspect that there might be one nevertheless and take precautions?

The roll is for "do I notice something" not for "do I believe something is there." Certainly it is possible to not notice a trap but still suspect that there might be one? Like I have pretty poor perception in RL, I certainly do not trust that just because I don't notice something it cannot...

Then by your definition 5e and many other RPGs don't have rules. I don't think most people think this.

In any case, in my campaign after 42 four to five hour session the characters are on eleventh level, and that's pretty much the same than 56 three hour sessions.

I agree that it is a rather big difference. So do people treat perception and investigation checks to detect traps and other dangers like some suggest deception should be treated? Meaning that if the PCs roll low, they must act like they think there is no trap, rather than that they don't know...

It literally isn't in 5e though. The GM has explicit right to override the rules and the DMG (at least 5.0) gives advice on fudging. So the possibility is already part of the default state of the game.

And I would say that in complex and nuanced matter like RPGs, one should be cautious about categorical axioms (aside Wheaton's Law.) "Never do this," "Always do that." Rather I would formulate most things more like "Should usually be avoided," "It is generally a good practice to," etc. There can...

Nah. Plenty of real people who were pretty normal have done a lot of interesting things in the human history. And in fiction too, for that matter. Yes you do. You're describing plot armour. Death is not only failure condition. But it is only failure condition (apart player willingly retiring...

Everyone who thinks the social skills should work on the PCs the same way they do on NPCs. So quite a few people.

Yes. It would work so in Exalted 2e, it doesn't actually work in D&D 5e, as PCs cannot be affected by social skills like the NPCs can, but several people here insist that they should. You also have given several examples (from Torchbearer and Prince Valiant, I believe) which seem to imply that...

So I very strongly agree with you about one thing here. Destined for interestingness. Yes, absolutely. This is basically one of my guiding mantras when running a game: "Whatever you choose to do, something interesting will happen." I just do not equate being interesting with being great...

Regarding Greek heroes and such, I think the difference is that some people want to play games where we find out whether the characters manage to become such heroes, whilst others want to play games where the characters are destined for greatness.

Yes. And I am not going to go trough dozens of pages of campaign log to infer how a system works. Summary of the rules or even better a direct quote of the rules will fit into one post.

Yes, and I do appreciate certain level of symmetry here. But what is important to recognise that the role and purpose of PCs and NPCs in the game is different. The PC is the only thing in the game the player controls, and they're (hopefully) immersed in their first person perspective. Any...

How about instead of asserting it confidently you actually explained how it works?

I don't mean that, nor have any of my examples been that. I mean a thing the character could relatively plausibly be convinced of given the rest of the fiction. Like in your example it is perfectly plausible that the characters would be convinced to surrender by a superior foe. But it still...

"Just trust me, bro" isn't as good argument than you think it is. You have posted several examples of your games where mechanics that would affect the PCs goals were used. If you have an issue with my logic, then actually demonstrate where I have erred. I'll quote myself from earlier:

So where do you draw the line? I don't think convincing a person that saving their mother is worth some pretty significant cost is absurd. It is something people could rather plausibly be convinced of. The plausibility is not the issue, it is that this is the sort of choice the player should be...

But we are not talking about that. I have not suggested the NPC convincing the PC to do anything absurd. They are situations where the player pretty plausibly could decide either way were it their call. But they don't get to make that decisions if mechanics dictate it to them. I don't think...

Have to play Sam? You get to play the true hero of the story! (I actually get your objection, albeit I haven't found it to be a problem in practice.)