Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6626566" data-attributes="member: 97077">I expect the DM to provide some manner of clue that indicates the statue is something of note. That is the DM saying that he or she has a face-down card on the table. Now, I might not pick up on that clue or I might and still fail to do anything about it to save my skin, but at least the DM gave me a shot at turning over that card. I don't think &quot;I once had a problem with a statue, so maybe this one will try to kill me, too&quot; is a valid clue. To me, that is procedural failure mitigation and I don't find it very engaging.My estimation, based only on the context provided, was that the DM had a face-down card in his or her back pocket instead of on the table (gargoyles posing as statues). The player was playing procedurally - if statue, then detect magic. (I'm wondering if the warlock has Eldritch Sight and relies on it heavily.)&nbsp; When the procedure failed to turn the hidden face-down card over and led to combat, then the player objected on the basis that detect magic should detect gargoyles. But really, there is an objection behind the objection in my view: The DM didn't show the face-down card on the table in the first place and this lends itself to the perception of the encounter as being a &quot;gotcha.&quot; I gave several examples of ways the DM might have done this in my initial post in this thread.Short of additional context to the contrary and based on my years as a DM and player, this is what I see as the heart of the matter.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 6626566, member: 97077"] I expect the DM to provide some manner of clue that indicates the statue is something of note. That is the DM saying that he or she has a face-down card on the table. Now, I might not pick up on that clue or I might and still fail to do anything about it to save my skin, but at least the DM gave me a shot at turning over that card. I don't think "I once had a problem with a statue, so maybe this one will try to kill me, too" is a valid clue. To me, that is procedural failure mitigation and I don't find it very engaging. My estimation, based only on the context provided, was that the DM had a face-down card in his or her back pocket instead of on the table (gargoyles posing as statues). The player was playing procedurally - if statue, then [I]detect magic[/I]. (I'm wondering if the warlock has Eldritch Sight and relies on it heavily.) When the procedure failed to turn the hidden face-down card over and led to combat, then the player objected on the basis that [I]detect magic[/I] should detect gargoyles. But really, there is an objection behind the objection in my view: The DM didn't show the face-down card on the table in the first place and this lends itself to the perception of the encounter as being a "gotcha." I gave several examples of ways the DM might have done this in my initial post in this thread. Short of additional context to the contrary and based on my years as a DM and player, this is what I see as the heart of the matter. [/QUOTE]

Verification