Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7758577" data-attributes="member: 97077">The rules admonish the DM to present the basic scope of options when describing the environment well before the need for ability checks comes up. So I would argue that if the DM is following that rule, the players will have enough information for "educated action" and sufficient agency to act in the setting. Ability checks, passive or otherwise, may then follow whatever actions the players have their characters take.As I mentioned in another similar thread, I don't want to get bogged down in examples because they usually serve to muddle the discussion rather than clarify, but as I feel you're engaging in the discussion in good faith, I'll give these a crack with the understanding you'll give my responses a charitable read knowing we're missing almost all the context that would be present in an actual play session. Let's assume the characters are taking a long rest in the wilderness and one or more PCs are Keeping Watch for hidden dangers (their players said so). Why are they keeping watch? Because at some point before now, I have telegraphed that this wilderness is dangerous and travelers are known to be attacked at night. That's part of me describing the environment so that the players can act with agency and aren't "gotcha'ed" by the DM. So they make a solid decision to Keep Watch.I roll for a random encounter and a stealthy, hostile monster is indicated. Because we are both (1) dealing with a declared task that is being performed over time (however long the watch is), (2) the monster is trying to be stealthy, and (3) we are shortly going to be in combat, we use passive Perception to resolve whether the characters Keeping Watch are surprised per the rules for hiding and determining surprise, then follow the remaining rules for Combat Step by Step. Those PCs who are not Keeping Watch are surprised automatically without reference to ability checks, passive or otherwise.Now we have the banquet and someone is trying to poison the PCs' drinks. As with telegraphing the danger of the wilderness, here I would also telegraph the potential danger at the banquet at some point beforehand. An NPC warns the PCs of a dire plot that may be unfolding against them, but has little in the way of details. Or perhaps word on the street is that the duke throwing the banquet was suspects of poisoning his rivals to amass more power. And so on. In the abstract this may sound a little clunky and obvious, but as I say above, in the appropriate context of the play session this information is imparted with subtlety while describing the environment. If the players pick up on that take the appropriate precautions, such as putting their keenest eye or observer of human nature out there to watch for potential poisoners while other PCs set about interacting with the gathered nobles for favor (or whatever their goal is), then they may be able to notice the plot unfolding before it's too late. A passive Perception check or passive Insight check might be used (depending on what the players declare their characters are trying to do) to resolve any uncertainty as to the outcome since these are tasks that are presumably taking place over a span of time and that's appropriate for a passive check. Drinking some antitoxin before Happy Hour is probably a good idea, too, in case all else fails.</blockquote>

Verification