I think that’s kind of a different topic.
I disagree.
I think
@doctorbadwolf is proposing a scenario where the choices are mutually exclusive, so choosing one eliminates the possibility of the other. In that case, they lose whatever was down the path they didn't take (and that makes all the difference).
They don’t lose it though, because they never had it in the first place to lose. They just never gain it.
This feels like semantics pretending to be a meaningful distinction, but I may just misunderstand you. If one path is easier than the other, or faster, or literally in any way more beneficial, it's a stake. You lose something by picking the other path. Semantic arguments about the wording, where we go back and forth about "lose" vs "miss out on" or whatever are the least useful or interesting kind of discussion we could possibly have. Arguing about which star wars movie is the best is a better use of our time than that.
This is what I refer to when I say pixelbitching. It isn't fun and doesn't have a positive effect on the game.
Yeah it's a style of play that is...very much antithetical to how I play dnd. "I search each piece of furniture thoroughly and carefully." may be less fun, but it is sufficient for any reasonable DM, IMO.
It definitely sounds like a communication issue. Each person in that scenario was making assumptions about the other person's play style. That was the source of the problem, not that either of them preferred the style they did.
I disagree. The DM was being a doof. Even if they are a DM that requires a roll regardless of how specifically you describe the action (and tbh I don't want my players spending ten minutes describing how the inspect something unless it's a back and forth where we walk through the process of solving the puzzle*), that should have been a "Okay go ahead and roll an investigate check." A good DM will either give advantage or lower the DC due to the detailed approach, but, yeah, I don't beleive in player skill so I'm also fine with not making players feel like they have to go into that kind of detail so they can get bonuses and easier rolls.
It's the whole "telegraphing" thing that I just don't get.
But let's say I'm describing someone's living quarters/small apartment. What we would consider a studio apartment would be pretty typical living arrangement for many people in my campaign world.
So if I'm describing it, it's going to have what I would consider standard set dressing. Bed, maybe a dresser, wardrobe along with a small desk and chair. Maybe another couple of pieces of furniture and a small stove. Couple of pictures on the wall, probably a cupboard. Likely even a little storage cubby up high. I probably forget to mention the chamber pot but it's probably in there too.
Why all that? Because it's what I would think would be reasonable for the person living there. I'm describing someone with a fair number of possessions but not fabulously wealthy. It's set dressing that sets the mood.
It's never just going to be a bureau with a single drawer (which, yes, is an exaggeration).
I can't think of any logical reason for any particular piece of furniture or location to stand out short of just putting a big neon sign saying "search here" pointed at the futon.
This.
It also, for me, helps me form a clearer mental picture of the game world and what’s happening in it that I struggle to form when the DM’s description of the environment is largely set dressing and the actions the characters take are vague and undefined.
It's not binary, to be fair. Every DM I know who just describes the scene without regard to what items are secretly important does so with a decent level of specificity in order to paint the scene. We just don't describe the some things in more detail than others unless it feels right to do so in terms of something in the scene naturally being an attention grabber.
it absolutely adds something to the game, by rewarding players for paying attention to the DM’s description of the environment and picking up on the signals that are seeded into it.
That only adds something to the game if one agrees that forcing players to either remember a bunch of details over the course of months of real time, or take detailed notes while remaining engaged with the game, both of which are
very, very, difficult, for a lot of people, in order to be good at dnd. The only requirement to be good at dnd should be coming to the game and being engaged with the game and actively working toward everyone having a good experience.
If you want to play dnd as a Dark Souls style game, that's fine, but those of us who don't want any part of that are never going to respond happily when people like the poster I put on ignore act like this style is somehow "the right way" to play.
I did find my keys in that example, though. I spent sufficient time searching for them, and succeeded in finding them.
This is why I get so frustrated discussing things on the internet. The point of the example is clearly that sometimes time simply will not cause you to find the thing. You have to come back later, or someone else has to look, or in some cases, it just doesn't happen.
I think...maybe you just have a good memory and perhaps don't have a great understanding of what not having a reliable memory is like? I hate to draw these kinds of conclusions about someone I don't know, but that is what comes across in a lot of this thread as I read your replies to myself and others.