The only example I can recall you giving was the dragon-slaying arrow, which had no importance to the location because it only became important when the players randomly faced a dragon and used the arrow to slay it.
By that logic the Fighter's Sword is important because they used it to kill monsters. But the fighter's sword isn't actually important.
I definitely think the fighter’s sword is important, but ok.
Because as established, the PCs likely have a 14 passive perception. With the Goblin rolling a +6 the Goblin succeeds 60% of the time. A plan that will fail 60% of the time isn't a good plan.
Why do the PCs likely only have a 14 passive perception? No one a Wis-based caster in the party? Nobody has expertise? Nobody took the Observant feat? Nobody above 4th level? Besides that, a goblin has +6 stealth. That’s an average roll of 16, so if the PCs only have +4 to perception among them at most, they only have a 45% chance of succeeding if they roll.
Also, if we have gotten to the point of the players wanting to roll to find something, then we have ALREADY failed the passive check, because if they succeeded the passive check, they won't want to roll, because they found the thing.
I thought they made this plan when the goblin ran away? They didn’t know if they would succeed or fail the passive check at that time.
Is it really? Typical party is 4 people. One person is drawing the map. That leaves 3 people.
No one is navigating. No one is foraging for food. No one is tracking. That is the entire list of PHB actions to do while traveling, so did those three players make a choice by not all four of them drawing the same map? Or is remaining alert to the environment simply the default option?
Typically while exploring a dungeon, one person should be making a map, at least one person should be trying to notice threats, or better yet one person doing so in the front rank and one person doing so in the back rank, and it’s probably a good idea for at least one person looking for secret doors (which I do consider a separate activity, and said so). That’s 4 characters occupied. At minimum, it is a choice who to designate for which role, since characters likely have different stats and will be better or worse suited to other roles. This is also assuming no one scouts ahead of the group, or elects to work together with someone else on their task to grant them advantage (+5, since we’re talking about passive checks) instead of engaging in a different activity themselves.
Ignoring the double speak of you accepting the DM's call but then bringing it up later because you don't accept it,
I can disagree with the DM’s call and still accept that it is their call to make, and live by the results. I may discuss my disagreement with them outside of the game, in hopes of convincing them to rule differently in the future, but even then I accept it is ultimately their decision. If I find this happens frequently, I may decide that I am not a good fit for the group and leave. It’s not often that I have felt the needto do this, but it has happened.
this means that you agree there is no practical difference between looking for ambushes and looking for secret doors, because you need to find secret doors to prevent some ambushes.
No, I don’t agree with that. But if that was how you ruled when I was playing in your game, I would live with it, especially cause it would be all upside for me as a player anyway.
Or do you actually disagree that looking ambushes and looking for secret doors is the same action. You can't have it both ways.
Either Noticing Threats includes hidden creatures, traps, hazards, ambushes and secret doors (because you can be ambushed from a secret door) or it doesn't, and not having a player constantly declare they are looking for secret doors and only secret doors means that you are opening yourself up to being ambushed from a secret door because you weren't looking for it so your Passive Perception never applied.
That’s silly. A secret door is not a hazard, looking for hazards will not reveal a secret door. If enemies try to ambush you from a secret door, those enemies are a hazard, which a character looking for hazards may be able to notice. The secret door will also then be open, so it would no longer be very secret.
It literally doesn’t, but whatever.
I love how it always comes to this. It always comes to something absurd that could never work.
Yes, because it’s supposed an example of an approach that can’t succeed at achieving the goal. Being unable to work is
the point of the example.
I guess walking carefully forward while looking at the ground is the equivalent of screaming at shoe laces to tie themselves. I should go on nation television, I'm an impossible man.
Woah, hang on. Walking carefully forward while looking at the ground is an entirely different approach than walking to the center of the room. If that was what you were picturing the characters doing to try and find the trap, why didn’t you say so? This would have been a very different conversation.
I also seems to have no effect on whether or not you can notice the trap, walk slow, crawl on your belly, spring, teleport. Doesn't matter, you will never see the trap.
Correct, the manner in which you travel from point A to point B has no impact on whether or not a trap that is triggered when someone stands in point B will be triggered when you complete that traversal.
The intention of the action was to look for traps. So, yes. When they spot the trap, they stop. The PC isn't a robot that must knowingly step on a hazard because they declared their movement before noticing the hazard.
I will guarantee you no player will be upset their movement was interrupted to prevent them from triggering a trap and DEMAND that they be allowed to trigger that trap.
Well sorry I didn’t read the hypothetical players’ minds and figure out that by “walk to the center of the room” they meant “walk carefully forward while looking at the ground.” For someone who’s so concerned with insuring the players don’t have to guess what the DM is thinking, you sure seem to be fine with making the DM guess what the players are thinking.
Funny how certain you are that you were absolutely correct in that scenario.
I played with this DM for several months, I got to be quite familiar with their DMing techniques. You may think I’m exaggerating when I say players could just goof off in another tab and press a skill button on the character sheet when the DM stopped talking, but I’m not. I know from conversations with the other players that some of them were literally doing that, and I know from firsthand experience that simply clicking a skill button on the character sheet without saying a word was a perfectly accepted way of engaging with the game. The DM did not care about any description we gave of our actions, only the number on the roll mattered.
So, you just didn't argue it at the table. You don't actually accept their ruling, and in fact used it as an example of Poor DMing.
I absolutely accepted the rulings; what he said happened was what happened, I never tried to get a ruling changed after the fact (well… actually once I did, and I regret that decision). On a few occasions I had conversations with him about why I thought his rulings were not consistent with the rules and were producing bad outcomes (like players checking out because we felt our level of engagement was irrelevant). Nothing changed, so I left the game. Simple.
Which makes it strange to me that you then take this conversation, where we are not at a table, and just constantly assert that I should just accept the DMs ruling and that I cannot discuss the pros and cons of the approach. It seems you are perfectly fine disagreeing and discussing when you feel you are in the right, but not when someone challenges that.
I’m perfectly fine with discussing why we rule the way we do. But when we get down to the point of “I don’t like the way you rule,” I no longer think the discussion is productive. I can explain to you how I arrive at my interpretation of the rules, and why I think ruling accordingly leads to positive play outcomes, and answer any questions you might have about my process or reasoning. But I have no interest in litigating who’s interpretation of the rules is “right” and I really don’t care if you like the way I rule or not.
That is how you resolve checks right? Low rolls fail and high rolls succeed?
Yes, when a roll is necessary. Also, often the context leading up to a roll being called for informs the possible results of the roll. Not the case in this DM’s game though.
Again. You preach that the DM is allowed to make the rulings they want, and we should accept the DMs rulings. But when those rulings are what you want... then it is "whatever the octupus in the DM's brain decided the random numbers meant"
Because it literally got to the point where the players were contributing no description whatsoever. The DM monologued for a bit, someone pushed a button and a number popped up on the screen, the DM monologued some more. Do I think that was bad DMing? Yes. Is “the octopus in his brain” a colorful way to express that? Yes. Did I ever protest a ruling in the moment? …well, one time, yes, and I’m rather embarrassed I did so. It was unproductive and not the appropriate time or place, but by that point my frustration with the game had built up to the point that I couldn’t contain it any more, and that was the point where it became clear to me I couldn’t keep playing in that game. But I was in the wrong for doing so. That was the DM’s call to make, and arguing about it only served to interrupt the flow of the game and make everyone uncomfortable. The appropriate thing to do would have been to accept the ruling and either discuss my disagreement later, leave the group, or both.
You utterly dismiss them as unimportant, uncaring and poor DMing... because you disagree with it. Different Strokes, except you get to deride them as being a bad approach.
It was a bad approach for me. Evidently some of the other players (though not all, some others also ended up leaving) didn’t have a problem with it. I may not share those players’ preferences, but I don’t think those preferences are bad or wrong. If they were having fun, I’m glad for them. I removed myself because it was clear I wasn’t the right fit for the group.
I thought “move to the center of the room” was reasonably specific. But if your intent was instead that they walked forward slowly while looking at the ground, I think saying that would have been a much clearer way to express that meaning.
