Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Warmaster Horus" data-source="post: 7250065" data-attributes="member: 6785438">A few fundamental issues to clarify.1)&nbsp; It's good to have players engaged and involved in having their characters observing &amp; interacting with their environments.2)&nbsp; #1 takes a lot of time and effort on the behalf of the DM and players.&nbsp; And not all players are into that and these days many players will dip their heads to read their phones while this is going on..3)&nbsp; The DM is the focal lens of EVERY element of the game world.&nbsp; It is their responsibility to clearly present the world to the players.&nbsp; They also need to establish how the PCs can interact with the world.4)&nbsp; Human communication is tricky, making #3 a challenging task for DMs and players to be on the same page for important game decisions.Old D&amp;D depended a lot on the players thoroughly pinching and prodding everything with the environment presented to them, mapping every corridor and puzzling out every obscure clue they came across.&nbsp; It was the player, not the PC, who's intellect was being challenged because there wasn't a concept of PCs having anything beyond very rudimentary skills (bend bars, lift gates, disarm trap).Today modern D&amp;D acknowledges that the characters have abilities and characteristics the players don't have.&nbsp; More is laid out to a group pro forma because it is assumed their characters are experienced, competent adventurers, dependent on their skills and abilities.&nbsp; This tends to lead to a more narrative style which emphasizes action over repetitive interaction with the environment.I remember having to open a chest by actually getting a full description of it.&nbsp; That meant the party had to tell the DM they were looking at it from different angles, using a magnet to see if the clasp was magnetic, examine the rosemaling on the lid for anything that slid or pushed in, etc.&nbsp; Then using Augury (weal or woe) to determine if any of our theories were correct.&nbsp; That took an hour or so.These days in many cases the DM sets a DC and one roll later the chest pops open.&nbsp; Or explodes.&nbsp; Two minutes, tops.Finding a good balance between the two approaches is going to be dependent on the players, DM and game being run.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Warmaster Horus, post: 7250065, member: 6785438"] A few fundamental issues to clarify. 1) It's good to have players engaged and involved in having their characters observing & interacting with their environments. 2) #1 takes a lot of time and effort on the behalf of the DM and players. And not all players are into that and these days many players will dip their heads to read their phones while this is going on.. 3) The DM is the focal lens of EVERY element of the game world. It is their responsibility to clearly present the world to the players. They also need to establish how the PCs can interact with the world. 4) Human communication is tricky, making #3 a challenging task for DMs and players to be on the same page for important game decisions. Old D&D depended a lot on the players thoroughly pinching and prodding everything with the environment presented to them, mapping every corridor and puzzling out every obscure clue they came across. It was the player, not the PC, who's intellect was being challenged because there wasn't a concept of PCs having anything beyond very rudimentary skills (bend bars, lift gates, disarm trap). Today modern D&D acknowledges that the characters have abilities and characteristics the players don't have. More is laid out to a group pro forma because it is assumed their characters are experienced, competent adventurers, dependent on their skills and abilities. This tends to lead to a more narrative style which emphasizes action over repetitive interaction with the environment. I remember having to open a chest by actually getting a full description of it. That meant the party had to tell the DM they were looking at it from different angles, using a magnet to see if the clasp was magnetic, examine the rosemaling on the lid for anything that slid or pushed in, etc. Then using Augury (weal or woe) to determine if any of our theories were correct. That took an hour or so. These days in many cases the DM sets a DC and one roll later the chest pops open. Or explodes. Two minutes, tops. Finding a good balance between the two approaches is going to be dependent on the players, DM and game being run. [/QUOTE]

Verification