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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8720506" data-attributes="member: 6779196">The first action isn’t non-viable, the results have just already been narrated. If they want different results, they need to try a different action.You’re assuming I have specific clues in mind that I have placed specifically for the players to find. This is not the case.I do not assume that at all. I’m ok with players sometimes missing telegraphs. It’s a perfectly normal and expected part of play.I don’t know why that has been your experience. It hasn’t been mine. I can tell you that I got the impression you might be skimming or something because you kept asking me when perception would come up in my games when I had already told you.Literally any action they want, so long as it includes a clear and reasonably specific statement of goal (what they want to accomplish) and approach (what their character does to try to make that happen). I will then use my best judgment to determine if it succeeds, if it fails, or if a check is needed to figure that out, and if so, what kind of check would be applicable.No, it absolutely does count, and I have already narrated the results of that action.Players make Wisdom checks in my game all the time. It’s probably the most common type of roll after attack rolls, though that’s just a general impression, I’be never tried to actually count.You’re never going to be able to understand my perspective if you continue thinking of checks as a thing you do to get results. That’s not what checks are for at my table. You get results by describing actions you character performs in the narrative, and sometimes, if it’s not obvious whether the action your character performs would get the results you want or not, and if not getting the results you want would have a consequence, then a check is for figuring out if you suffer that consequence.Again, if their goal is “find out if there’s danger” and their approach is “look around,” then I determine the results of that action by way of a passive Wisdom (Perception) check, and include those results in my description of the environment. If they want to try doing something else to try and find out if there’s anything else hidden in the environment, they are welcome to do so, but I need to know what the character is doing in order to assess whether or not what they’re doing could result in them finding out if anything else is hidden in the environment. This happens all the time, and I frequently call for Wisdom checks to resolve them (to which, yes, the player could add their proficiency bonus if they think one of their proficiencies, such as perception, would help). I don’t know what else you want me to say.Clearly you and I interpret the rules for ability checks differently if you think a failed check doesn’t necessarily have consequences. But, rather than arguing over our interpretations of the text, suffice it to say that at my table, it is the case that ability checks always have consequences. Indeed, at my table the fact that checks always have consequences is tautological, because if there was not a consequence, I would not have called for a check. If a PC’s action could succeed or fail to achieve the player’s goal, but failing to achieve that goal would have no consequence, then I would simply narrate success without calling for a check.I have said no such thing. I’ve said “you did that, and I have told you the results. If you want different results, try a different action.”There are no rolls without actions. If there’s a new roll, it must be a new action.Yes, which insures that most actions do have a consequence for failure, since most actions take time, or could attract attention.I’m not going to make them use up time for an action they literally already performed. The exchange of “I look around for danger,” “you were already doing that, I included the results in my narration” takes up (a very small amount of) real-life time, but it doesn’t take up time in the fiction.You have yet to give me an action other than the one I keep telling you I would resolve via a passive Wisdom (Perception) check.I don’t even know what you’re talking about at this point.If you don’t know what to ask about, then move on. I’ve never had a player in real life have this much trouble coming up with a simple goal. “I want to know if this figure has any religious significance, so I think back to my time studying at Candlekeep.” Or whatever! It’s really not that hard.I don’t know if it’s important or not. It’s there. The players can make of it what they will. Maybe it will be very important. Maybe they’ll toss it in a sack and hoc it as soon as they get back to town. That’s not up to me to decide.I don’t know if they know more than I told them. To figure that out, I need to know what else they’re curious about, and where they imagine their character may know about it from.I don’t know if I’be told them everything relevant. It isn’t up to me what is or isn’t relevant to them. If they want to know something, they have to tell me. If they can’t think of anything else they want to know, then evidently there’s nothing else that’s relevant to them.I have no such intent. Whether or not they ask more specific questions is entirely up to them. I have no horse in that race.There is no “right question” to ask, and no clue to tip them off to what the non-existent “right question” is. If they have questions, they should ask them. If they don’t, we should move on.Yes, I am well aware that players pick up habits like this as a defensive response to gotcha DMs. I’m also well aware that players can unlearn these habits. It has happened in my games. Probably will do again. I’m not worried about it.If I’m repeating myself it’s because I’m responding to you, and you are repeating yourself. I don’t know what else to tell you. I’ve explained how it works in my games. At some point either you accept that or you don’t.<img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♀️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2640.png" title="Woman shrugging    :woman_shrugging:" data-shortname=":woman_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /> Then do it your way. I don’t really care. My way works great for me and my players.No, I told you it did work, because you had already done it and I had told you the results.The action declared works perfectly fine. You seem to want the action to have a different result. But it doesn’t work that way. Your action had the result that it had, sorry if you didn’t like it. Maybe try something else if you want a different result.What does being better at coming up with actions have to do with it? I don’t have an action in mind because it’s not my job to, and in fact, having an action already in mind is exactly what leads to the kinds of gotcha gameplay you seem to be so averse to. When I’m a player, I can and do come up with actions just fine. It actually works great, even in games where the DM is fine with players asking for checks, I tend to achieve automatic success much more often than other players do, because I ask to get results instead of asking for a chance to fail.Good thing passive scores aren’t the only way to interact with proficiencies in my game then?They absolutely can take actions that lead to me calling for a Wisdom check. My players do so all the time.I would say that they’re free to describe whatever action they wish, and I will determine how to resolve it. This action should, in my determination, be resolved with a passive ability check.</blockquote>

Verification