Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jgsugden" data-source="post: 9076148" data-attributes="member: 2629">It can be, and often is, entirely obvious what a player is trying to achieve when saying they want to roll a perception check.&nbsp; I'm really not sure how you can think otherwise given how often I've seen it as pretty much every table I've played at in the 5E era.In these instances it is a shorthand for the the longer description you are requiring.&nbsp; It ends up meaning the same thing ... but just comes out in a fraction of the time.&nbsp; So if it means the same thing, why is it potentially a bad thing to ask them to spell it out?&nbsp; For one thing, pacing.&nbsp; Detail is slow.&nbsp; Detail kills momentum.&nbsp; Drawn out detail can be used to create suspense ... but it also inherently slows the pace.&nbsp; It is great for tension, like in a good gothic horror tale - but lousy for high modern action movie moments like you'd find in Marvel or John Wick movies.&nbsp; Robert Jordan was lousy with this in Wheel of Time as he hampered his action sequences in ways that read more like an encoclopedia entry than exciting and engaging storytelling that leap from one climax to the next.&nbsp; Geesh - Robert - We don't need to know the history of the weaver that wove the carpet that the Trolloc stepped on!&nbsp; Just read this paragraph and look at how the addition of more and more language slows the point and changes the tone.For another thing, it is repetitive.&nbsp; Repeating the same style over and over creates a monotone approach.&nbsp; Training players to answer in a certain way, every time, lest the face a request to rephrase ... well, you may get the Pavlovian response you're seeking, but it ends up providing a similar element to all of your action and storytelling.&nbsp; As you change pace, verbiage, and tonality in your voice players naturally adjust their own - and pushing them back towards the requested method of response hampers your own ability to move the story in different directions.Additionally, it boxes you into holes as a DM.&nbsp; Every approach has limitations.&nbsp; Some reveal too much information.&nbsp; Some hide too much.&nbsp; Some create too much tension.&nbsp; Others result in not enough.&nbsp; Some encourage comedy, while others discourage it.&nbsp; By using a variety of methods, and especially by allowing them to flow dynamically and naturally as players respond to the stimulation you provide, you can work around the limitations that come with any one approach.&nbsp; Pulling players back into one structure over and over limits your versatility.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jgsugden, post: 9076148, member: 2629"] It can be, and often is, entirely obvious what a player is trying to achieve when saying they want to roll a perception check. I'm really not sure how you can think otherwise given how often I've seen it as pretty much every table I've played at in the 5E era. In these instances it is a shorthand for the the longer description you are requiring. It ends up meaning the same thing ... but just comes out in a fraction of the time. So if it means the same thing, why is it potentially a bad thing to ask them to spell it out? For one thing, pacing. Detail is slow. Detail kills momentum. Drawn out detail can be used to create suspense ... but it also inherently slows the pace. It is great for tension, like in a good gothic horror tale - but lousy for high modern action movie moments like you'd find in Marvel or John Wick movies. Robert Jordan was lousy with this in Wheel of Time as he hampered his action sequences in ways that read more like an encoclopedia entry than exciting and engaging storytelling that leap from one climax to the next. Geesh - Robert - We don't need to know the history of the weaver that wove the carpet that the Trolloc stepped on! Just read this paragraph and look at how the addition of more and more language slows the point and changes the tone. For another thing, it is repetitive. Repeating the same style over and over creates a monotone approach. Training players to answer in a certain way, every time, lest the face a request to rephrase ... well, you may get the Pavlovian response you're seeking, but it ends up providing a similar element to all of your action and storytelling. As you change pace, verbiage, and tonality in your voice players naturally adjust their own - and pushing them back towards the requested method of response hampers your own ability to move the story in different directions. Additionally, it boxes you into holes as a DM. Every approach has limitations. Some reveal too much information. Some hide too much. Some create too much tension. Others result in not enough. Some encourage comedy, while others discourage it. By using a variety of methods, and especially by allowing them to flow dynamically and naturally as players respond to the stimulation you provide, you can work around the limitations that come with any one approach. Pulling players back into one structure over and over limits your versatility. [/QUOTE]

Verification