Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 7742087">Ah, so the &quot;binary knowledge near miss&quot; problem.&nbsp; This is one reason that traps are so hard to implement (and why, as with puzzles, I largely don't use them).My p.o.v. on this is that telling the player they hear a rustle, and then relying on them to &quot;roleplay&quot; not believing it is anything more than that, is not fun roleplaying.&nbsp; This gets us into the weeds about &quot;immersion&quot; and &quot;meta-gaming&quot; but telling me that I hear leaves rustling but asking me to not read anything into it because I failed my perception check is the same as asking me to pretend to not know that trolls regenerate.&nbsp; So although the rustle of leaves that gets dismissed is a common trope in suspenseful movies, it's difficult (impossible?) to implement in a roleplaying game in a way that is actually suspenseful, as opposed to simple play-acting.I'm guessing, from the above, that you do think it's fun to pretend that you don't know trolls regenerate.&nbsp; In which case we are very unlikely to agree about this issue.&nbsp; But I'm happy to keep discussing it.Those checks are about facts you know/remember, not how you feel and think.&nbsp; The distinction is clear to me, but perhaps not to others.EDIT:The way you'd need to model this, I think...and not that I'm advocating doing so...would require two things:1) When somebody is on watch, you make several/many secret dice rolls against detailed tables that can produce positives, negatives, false positive, and false negatives.2) Each time, you ask the player what they do.&nbsp; 3) There is a mechanical cost to &quot;doing something&quot;.&nbsp; E.g., each time the player investigates, it could reduce the effectiveness of the rest.&nbsp; If they wake everybody else up, it reduces the effectiveness of rest for everybody.Again, I wouldn't actually do this, but those are the ingredients to achieve what you are describing in a meaningful, immersive way.&nbsp; For me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 7742087"] Ah, so the "binary knowledge near miss" problem. This is one reason that traps are so hard to implement (and why, as with puzzles, I largely don't use them). My p.o.v. on this is that telling the player they hear a rustle, and then relying on them to "roleplay" not believing it is anything more than that, is not fun roleplaying. This gets us into the weeds about "immersion" and "meta-gaming" but telling me that I hear leaves rustling but asking me to not read anything into it because I failed my perception check is the same as asking me to pretend to not know that trolls regenerate. So although the rustle of leaves that gets dismissed is a common trope in suspenseful movies, it's difficult (impossible?) to implement in a roleplaying game in a way that is [I]actually[/I] suspenseful, as opposed to simple play-acting. I'm guessing, from the above, that you [I]do[/I] think it's fun to pretend that you don't know trolls regenerate. In which case we are very unlikely to agree about this issue. But I'm happy to keep discussing it. Those checks are about facts you know/remember, not how you feel and think. The distinction is clear to me, but perhaps not to others. EDIT: The way you'd need to model this, I think...and not that I'm advocating doing so...would require two things: 1) When somebody is on watch, you make several/many secret dice rolls against detailed tables that can produce positives, negatives, false positive, and false negatives. 2) Each time, you ask the player what they do. 3) There is a mechanical cost to "doing something". E.g., each time the player investigates, it could reduce the effectiveness of the rest. If they wake everybody else up, it reduces the effectiveness of rest for everybody. Again, I wouldn't actually do this, but those are the ingredients to achieve what you are describing in a meaningful, immersive way. For me. [/QUOTE]

Verification