Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 6627454" data-attributes="member: 2011">Here you claim that the DM should give the PCs a clue.And here, you claim that you (or a PC) should just know that a dangerous area might have predators without additional information.Which is it? Should the DM give additional clues, or should players be smart enough to know that in dangerous areas, there might be monsters there?Are the obvious DM clues needed or not?Don't get me wrong. I think that information should be supplied as appropriate. Troll larder. Lot's of carcasses, smells awful before one even opens the door (and smells worse when the door is open), and when the carcasses are first examined, there are signs of gnawing and cracked bones to get to the marrow. The signs of gnawing are not apparent from the doorway. The PCs have to interact, but there is no roll for something this obvious once the PCs do interact with the carcasses (but this additional info is not just handed out for free until the PCs interact).Even after interacting with the carcasses, there doesn't necessarily have to be a DM description that something tall did this or something strong did this. This type of additional information should come out of PC interaction with the environment and/or questions by the players and/or Investigation rolls. It's this non-obvious information that should not just be handed out for free. The players should have to investigate and interact further in order to get this more detailed level of information (for example, noticing that the gnawing has large scrape marks, indicating large teeth and possibly a large creature).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 6627454, member: 2011"] Here you claim that the DM should give the PCs a clue. And here, you claim that you (or a PC) should just know that a dangerous area might have predators without additional information. Which is it? Should the DM give additional clues, or should players be smart enough to know that in dangerous areas, there might be monsters there? Are the obvious DM clues needed or not? Don't get me wrong. I think that information should be supplied as appropriate. Troll larder. Lot's of carcasses, smells awful before one even opens the door (and smells worse when the door is open), and when the carcasses are first examined, there are signs of gnawing and cracked bones to get to the marrow. The signs of gnawing are not apparent from the doorway. The PCs have to interact, but there is no roll for something this obvious once the PCs do interact with the carcasses (but this additional info is not just handed out for free until the PCs interact). Even after interacting with the carcasses, there doesn't necessarily have to be a DM description that something tall did this or something strong did this. This type of additional information should come out of PC interaction with the environment and/or questions by the players and/or Investigation rolls. It's this non-obvious information that should not just be handed out for free. The players should have to investigate and interact further in order to get this more detailed level of information (for example, noticing that the gnawing has large scrape marks, indicating large teeth and possibly a large creature). [/QUOTE]

Verification