Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7789308" data-attributes="member: 6750235">Insight isn't different from that.&nbsp; Players looking at body language as a second nature or knowing how to interpret eye movements doesn't require anything out of the ordinary actions to notice that.&nbsp; The action is inherently part of something they are already doing -- looking around.Characters walk around looking and listening constantly, and evaluate what they are perceiving constantly.&nbsp; Asking for an additional action to demonstrate they are doing something they are already doing to justify an DM requirement before resolving the check is redundant.Some checks are simply passive in that they do not typically require additional actions: perception, insight, arcana, religion, history, and nature are some pretty common examples.&nbsp; DM's are still playing a game with players.&nbsp; Being an agreed upon ref grants a lot of power in the final say but it also includes making reasonable rulings.&nbsp; I don't deny DM's have the final say.I'm saying DM's make consistent rulings with things like organized game play, published materials, sage advice or errata, and reasonable gameplay.&nbsp; It's unreasonable for a player to become disruptive over rulings during play but it's not unreasonable to request clarification or give reminder.&nbsp; It's also not unreasonable to use a game term to initiate the actions and request the resolution for the DM to make.I never said the DM doesn't make the call.&nbsp; I said the DM shouldn't require additional descriptive action.&nbsp; It's unnecessary and can be disruptive to game flow or player enjoyment because simple interactions become more complex and monotonous.So the opposite of the passive perception score that been used for the last two editions.So if I'm playing a published adventures that lists a DC for religion knowledge when I see an old statue I would need to guess what to ask and then make up a reason to make the check before you let me check?Discussions like this are about standard practices too.&nbsp; What you do at your table might answer the insight but it doesn't overwrite the existence of passive checks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 7789308, member: 6750235"] Insight isn't different from that. Players looking at body language as a second nature or knowing how to interpret eye movements doesn't require anything out of the ordinary actions to notice that. The action is inherently part of something they are already doing -- looking around. Characters walk around looking and listening constantly, and evaluate what they are perceiving constantly. Asking for an additional action to demonstrate they are doing something they are already doing to justify an DM requirement before resolving the check is redundant. Some checks are simply passive in that they do not typically require additional actions: perception, insight, arcana, religion, history, and nature are some pretty common examples. DM's are still playing a game with players. Being an agreed upon ref grants a lot of power in the final say but it also includes making reasonable rulings. I don't deny DM's have the final say. I'm saying DM's make consistent rulings with things like organized game play, published materials, sage advice or errata, and reasonable gameplay. It's unreasonable for a player to become disruptive over rulings during play but it's not unreasonable to request clarification or give reminder. It's also not unreasonable to use a game term to initiate the actions and request the resolution for the DM to make. I never said the DM doesn't make the call. I said the DM shouldn't require additional descriptive action. It's unnecessary and can be disruptive to game flow or player enjoyment because simple interactions become more complex and monotonous. So the opposite of the passive perception score that been used for the last two editions. So if I'm playing a published adventures that lists a DC for religion knowledge when I see an old statue I would need to guess what to ask and then make up a reason to make the check before you let me check? Discussions like this are about standard practices too. What you do at your table might answer the insight but it doesn't overwrite the existence of passive checks. [/QUOTE]

Verification