Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 211275" data-attributes="member: 1106">Some DMs take great delight in not giving enough perception information to players that would be obvious to the PCs, and then hitting them with the consequences.&nbsp; Sometimes all that's needed is a warning from the DM if it would be obvious to the PC that he or she is about to do something dumb.&nbsp; Arguably the player was looking at the battle grid and could have noticed the result without DM help, but nevertheless, it would have been much more obvious to the PC, IMO...It would probably be visually obvious to the spellcaster that rolling the sphere into the owlbear would fry his friend.&nbsp; The DM should probably warn the player with an &quot;are you sure? It looks like you'll fry your rogue friend&quot; before letting it happen - if he notices the discrepancy between player intentions and what the PC would find obvious, because he's there, looking at the scene.I note the lack of sufficient information in the &quot;dumb player&quot; thread as well.&nbsp; Saying it's a &quot;bright green wall&quot; isn't sufficient for a player to notice it's a jelly - add &quot;partially transparent, slick-looking, and soft-looking bright green wall&quot; and you'd have, as a player, enough visual cues to make an informed decision that this isn't just a painted wall, but maybe a gelatinous cube.DMs who hit players with consequences without describing what the PC would be able to see as the likely consequence of an action are a pet peeve of mine.&nbsp; For example, riding after a goblin into the woods requires a DM to mention &quot;It looks like you'd get hit by branches if you rode in there&quot;, rather than just smiling evilly, saying &quot;OK&quot; and rolling for damage.&nbsp; It's a stylistic thing, but personally I get somewhat frustrated by DMs who don't tell you what a character can see as a likely consequence of a proposed action.In some cases, it won't be obvious to the PC what's likely to happen (and you might want to penalise low wisdom PCs especially in this way, due to a lack of grasp of cause and effect causing them to do something foolish), but in many cases, I think it is.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rounser, post: 211275, member: 1106"] Some DMs take great delight in not giving enough perception information to players that would be obvious to the PCs, and then hitting them with the consequences. Sometimes all that's needed is a warning from the DM if it would be obvious to the [i]PC[/i] that he or she is about to do something dumb. Arguably the player was looking at the battle grid and could have noticed the result without DM help, but nevertheless, it would have been much more obvious to the PC, IMO... It would probably be visually obvious to the spellcaster that rolling the sphere into the owlbear would fry his friend. The DM should probably warn the player with an "are you sure? It looks like you'll fry your rogue friend" before letting it happen - if he notices the discrepancy between player intentions and what the PC would find obvious, because he's there, looking at the scene. I note the lack of sufficient information in the "dumb player" thread as well. Saying it's a "bright green wall" isn't sufficient for a player to notice it's a jelly - add "partially transparent, slick-looking, and soft-looking bright green wall" and you'd have, as a player, enough visual cues to make an informed decision that this isn't just a painted wall, but maybe a gelatinous cube. DMs who hit players with consequences without describing what the PC would be able to [i]see[/i] as the likely consequence of an action are a pet peeve of mine. For example, riding after a goblin into the woods requires a DM to mention "It looks like you'd get hit by branches if you rode in there", rather than just smiling evilly, saying "OK" and rolling for damage. It's a stylistic thing, but personally I get somewhat frustrated by DMs who don't tell you what a character can see as a likely consequence of a proposed action. In some cases, it won't be obvious to the PC what's likely to happen (and you might want to penalise low wisdom PCs especially in this way, due to a lack of grasp of cause and effect causing them to do something foolish), but in many cases, I think it is. [/QUOTE]

Verification