Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 7789947" data-attributes="member: 6750235">That wasn't directed at me but I will answer. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🙃" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f643.png" title="Upside-down face&nbsp; &nbsp; :upside_down:" data-shortname=":upside_down:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />The DM should always know when an NPC is causing an opposed check because the DM controls the NPC.&nbsp; Not wanting to tip the player off, this is why a passive check would be used and requires no specific action by the player.A player can actively trigger a check through his or her actions.&nbsp; It's irrelevant whether the player says &quot;I use insight to figure out...&quot; vs &quot;I probe with questions to determine...&quot; because those are different ways of communicating the same thing.That's when a standard opposed roll takes place.That's not a false equivalence.&nbsp; It's an example of the difference between the DM being clear on a course of action (the attack) and the player not knowing and asking (the insight check).&nbsp; Wherther the player is clear or not on whether a roll is needed is a second point.Both examples rely on using terms from the game mechanics to convey an action and remove the unnecessary descriptions to move the game along.&nbsp; That's why the comparison is valid.There is nothing wrong with a player clarifying if he or she needs to make a check or initiatiating an action using a game term.&nbsp; The term method is less monotonous and gives better encounter flow.Good roleplayers can give better story interaction with the descriptives but that's not something every player can or wants to do so forcing the issue is less correct, imo.&nbsp; This is true because it's still a game for everyone at the table regardless of a DM game ref.&nbsp; If the group wants the descriptives go for it; otherwise don't force it.Keep it simple, keep it fun.EDIT:&nbsp; I'm curios why DM's insist PC's need to iniiate a check.&nbsp; This seems to ignore NPC actions initiating the checks and the PC's only respond with a roll.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ashrym, post: 7789947, member: 6750235"] That wasn't directed at me but I will answer. 🙃 The DM should always know when an NPC is causing an opposed check because the DM controls the NPC. Not wanting to tip the player off, this is why a passive check would be used and requires no specific action by the player. A player can actively trigger a check through his or her actions. It's irrelevant whether the player says "I use insight to figure out..." vs "I probe with questions to determine..." because those are different ways of communicating the same thing. That's when a standard opposed roll takes place. That's not a false equivalence. It's an example of the difference between the DM being clear on a course of action (the attack) and the player not knowing and asking (the insight check). Wherther the player is clear or not on whether a roll is needed is a second point. Both examples rely on using terms from the game mechanics to convey an action and remove the unnecessary descriptions to move the game along. That's why the comparison is valid. There is nothing wrong with a player clarifying if he or she needs to make a check or initiatiating an action using a game term. The term method is less monotonous and gives better encounter flow. Good roleplayers can give better story interaction with the descriptives but that's not something every player can or wants to do so forcing the issue is less correct, imo. This is true because it's still a game for everyone at the table regardless of a DM game ref. If the group wants the descriptives go for it; otherwise don't force it. Keep it simple, keep it fun. EDIT: I'm curios why DM's insist PC's need to iniiate a check. This seems to ignore NPC actions initiating the checks and the PC's only respond with a roll. [/QUOTE]

Verification