NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8720411" data-attributes="member: 6801228">But that is exactly the problem. The player is indicating to you that they want to make a check. You demand an action. They tell you an action, and your response is to say that that action is something they have already done, it isn't worth making a check, because you already accounted for it. So, what is the player left to do? They need to somehow come up with an action other than the action they want to take, because the first action is non-viable.Because I don't know where the clue is. You keep saying "I can't read your mind" but you somehow seem to think that the player has totally read your mind and knows where and how to look for the clues you've left. Yes, you've said you telegraph, but I want to point you to [USER=7034645]@Cruentus[/USER] 's post. They said they would telegraph a trap if it was in the room, one of the methods they said they would use was "there is a pull rope to the side of the desk,"Now, for them, that was a telegraph that there was a trap in the room, activate by pulling the rope I imagine. Of course, me, thinking about a fancy room, in a castle, with a pull rope.... it's just a bell for the servants. So, they have telegraphed a clue, and to them it is a good telegraph, but to me sitting at the table, it is just a background detail that isn't actually a clue. So when I go looking for clues, I'm not going to focus on the pull rope. This is why your response keeps frustrating me, because you seem to assume the player has perfectly picked up on your telegraph, and therefore will know exactly which clues to look for. But I am not assuming that. I am assuming the player may have a vague idea, but not that they know what they are looking for.Yes I am reading your posts. Why is the first thing everyone on this site goes to is "can you read?" Just because you ask for a Wisdom Ability score check instead of a Perception check doesn't mean my point doesn't apply. Because, again, what action are they allowed to take to try and detect danger? They've stated an action, and you've said "you already did that, that doesn't count." So, fine, since I need to be so precise. You've made Wisdom Ability checks to detect danger and hidden details a near useless ability check to which proficiency can be applied. Does that make my point more clear? Are we happier now? I don't care which words you use to ask for the die roll, that isn't the point. The point is they are asking for the die roll, they are trying to take an action to use the die roll to get their intended result, but you aren't letting them do it because the only way they know how to ask what they want is regulated to Passive Perception and nothing else. So, if a player wanted to make a Wisdom Ability check using a d20, which may or may not apply their proficiency in the Perception skill, to look for hidden details or detect danger and you won't let them do that by simply saying "I look for hidden details and/or try to detect danger" what actions can they take? I can't read your mind, but it sure seems like from the player perspective their goal and action is pretty clearly laid out, but it isn't good enough. So what is?Actually, a failed roll does not neccessarily have any negative consequences. I certainly don't cause negative things to happen to characters who fail perception rolls. But, again, they HAVE told you so. They HAVE tried to give you an action, and you've said "No, that doesn't work. Pick a different action." But you won't actually explain what actions would work.So in other words it was a waste of time to declare their action, because you won't give them new information. And, actually, they don't need to move any of the clutter. The keys are right there. They just need to pay more attention. Which isn't a new action. It is a new roll.Except that you said if they stay too long in a single place they potential monster attacks. And that their declared action of "looking again" is a waste of time, which would indicate to me that they are just ticking down the counter til a random encounter shows up. And every time we've given a general action, your response has been, "No, what do you DO?" indicating a need for more specific actions.And not everyone desires their only chance to explore being paying precise attention to your every word. They want to have other options. That isn't a problem.So there is nothing about this idol that I do not know? Because, again, I can't ask questions about things I don't know to ask questions about. Why do you keep acting like the player always knows what to ask about? Can you at least see how if they don't know what to ask about, that is a problem when you then double down that they need to ask specific questions?In my experience, if it isn't important, you tell them it isn't important and move on. If it is set dressing, I tell them it is set dressing when they start asking deeper questions about it, because I don't have the answers, because those answers don't exist.The action is thinking. Or recalling if you want to get technical with memories. There is the activity. And you know the intent, they want to know if they know more than you told them. Now we are the crossroads. You keep saying you can't tell them, because they haven't asked a specific enough question. But how are they supposed to ask a specific question about things they don't know to ask about? If you respond to them asking with "I've told you everything relevant" then you have ended the line of inquiry. You are saying there is no more information which could be found. And if that is true, then great, we move on. But that isn't your intent. You intend by saying "I've told you everything relevant" to then get them to ask more specific questions. And now instead of DnD, we risk playing 20 Questions, because now it is a matter of asking questions until they hit on something that gives them the clue to ask the right question. And your responses seem to indicate that you feel that outcome is impossible. But it is trivially possible, I've seen it happen. And I've had DM's pull that sort of thing. I've had DM's where we nearly TPK'd because "you didn't say you looked on the bottom of the vase. If you'd looked, you'd have seen the clue, and then you wouldn't have been caught off-guard" when we all were saying we were searching the room for clues. And yes, you can rightfully say "but that's bad DMing and I'm not a bad DM" and you are 100% correct, you are not a bad DM, but player's develop habits based on the DMs they've had. And the player who asks to roll perception, or asks to look again and wants to roll? They are doing so because they have been trained by DMs who punish them for taking specific actions. And your response of "No, give me a specific action" doesn't encourage them to play differently. It makes them more suspicious, because that's exactly what the Bad DM's say too, and that is always a trap, and they don't want to fall into the trap. What I don't understand, is how I can explain this again and again, to try and explain what the player's thought proccess and goals are, again and again, and you can't seem to have an ounce of understanding beyond just repeating yourself.No. It really doesn't. Maybe your player's do it better, but every table I've seen it happen at, it has been a joke of coming up with some hare-brained excuse to allow them to roll the dice. It doesn't make the world feel richer, because it isn't taken seriously, it is taken as "what excuse can I give to allow me to roll" Instead of having them come up with excuses, I just let them roll. We can justify it afterwards if we feel the need to,We tried that. I gave you what I wanted to find, and how I wanted to do it, and you told me it wasn't going to work, because I've already done it. So, you don't have a specific action in mind, you just know the action declared doesn't work. Yet, you think the player can come up with a different action, that will work? Why should we assume the player is better with coming up with actions than you are?I don't think it is "okay" because there are skill abilities and ways to enhance those skills that cannot come into play if the only way for them to interact with the skill is via passive scores. Instead of making the passive insight the floor of what the character notices when talking to someone, it is the ceiling, because they cannot take actions that lead to "a wisdom ability check that may or may not apply their proficiency in Insight" so they can't do better than their passive 10.And what if the player said they wanted to roll instead, because they are a rogue with reliable talent and they are guaranteed to not do worse than their passive, and they want to get higher than their passive?</blockquote>

Verification