Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8722022" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Okay, that is a completely unfair comparison. I'm not asking to do Acrobatics instead of a Dex Save (which is something that a player cannot declare, since Dex Saves are forced by monsters and NPCs). I'm asking to use my skills, by declaring an action, and noting that if I was able to do that (which is the main play loop of DnD) that there are multiple abilities tied into rolling a D20 that are not tied into a passive check. Which is why a passive check is not "fundamentally the same thing" as an active check. Rolling a ten on the die and being given a ten by the nature of passives is completely different when multiple abilities and dials in the game allow you to interact with that die in meaningful ways. Frankly, if you think there is no difference between a passive check and an active check, why have your players ever roll the d20? The DM could just determine all actions are best solved by taking 10. But clearly that defeats the fundamental purpose of the proficiency system and the skill system in the game.Clues is just a shorthand. Maybe there is a mystery. Maybe it is a discovery. I don't know, but clearly there should be SOMETHING notable in the room if the PCs are taking their time to bother looking around. After all, if there is nothing relevant in the room, why are we spending time on it?Well, when I imagine myself looking for someone hidden, I often imagine myself studying the environment with my eyes. Especially if the someone hidden is likely to stab me if I get close to them. So, I am completely roleplaying, thank you for reminding me how the game I've spent so much time playing works.Honestly, I am trying to understand, but every time I ask you something you tell me you don't do that. You don't know. You can't imagine that. It really is making me wonder what the heck you actually do behind the screen. Combining all your answers together, it seems almost like you just randomly roll a location, set your players inside the location with no idea what is going on, why they are there, or what any goals of play are other than to have them wander around your randomized location and make up things and connections. I'm not trying to be dismissive or rude, but... that's what I'm getting, since you never know anything about anything about what the players could be trying to accomplish. I honestly wonder if your players tell you what the adventure they want is, and then you randomize a location that matches that. Because you seem to have no context for them doing anything or finding anything except direct physical actions.Which is why I said "and while it wasn't wasted" in my example.But they never even got to try their plan. That's not their plan not working out, that is their plan being vetoed. Which is completely different.Okay, well I'm telling you that I don't think learning a different fact is a consequence of failure, especially not how you were seeming to define it. Frankly, it is no different than just saying "You don't know" or "You can't recall" which you claimed was not an adequate consequence for failure. Seriously, I don't see a difference in:"I want to roll religion to see what rituals this idol of Shar is used in?" "Okay" dice clattering "I'm sorry, all you can recall about Shar is that she is the sister of Selune and the Goddess of Darkness" compared to"I want to roll religion to see what rituals this idol of Shar is used in?" "Okay" dice clattering "I'm sorry, you don't know" The end result is identical. Right, but that pressure isn't something I want all the time. But you would deprive them of the opportunity to make an ability check that may apply proficiency to detect the trap, which is what I'm talking about, and sucks even more. "But you still get to save" doesn't make a difference when their goal which was completely ruined, was to not have to roll a save at all. But the how means they trigger the trap and have zero chance to find and avoid it. So the intent doesn't matter unless the how conveniently avoids the unknown, unseeable danger. It doesn't matter if they moved into the center of the room to look for traps or to soliloquy about poor yorrik, moving to the center of the room triggers the trap, no chance to detect it.  Seriously, I don't understand how you run a game without having some sembalance of things happening. If the cracked teacup is just as potentially important as the necromantic grimoire is just as important as the loose flagstone then there is either a common story thread tying it all together, or you have no story whatsoever, created together or not. But if they tell you "I want to search for hidden items in this room" then they have told you what they want to accomplish (find any hidden items in the room) and how (search it). And since an investigation check can be used to search an area for hidden things, if they say "I want to investigate the room" then they have still told you what they want to accomplish (find hidden items or things in the room) and how (searching it) The only difference I can figure between this and the wardrobe is that they won't be able to do it in ten minutes, per your rulings. Which was exactly the point GMforpowergamers was making. Maybe you've forgotten their character is from Tyr, maybe they haven't declared where they are from yet, but by requiring the source of their knowledge before letting them roll, your are putting them in an awkward position of trying to guess. But, also, would you just tell them that the sigil reminds them of something they saw in Tyr, or would you tell them what it is? If after saying that they recognize it, if they say "I have proficiency in Arcana" would you then reveal the rest of the information?It should be. But it doesn't always work out that way. And when you are also having them make up things as they go along, who is to say anyone remembers anything. So your goal, per Tetrasodium's point, is to have your players declare where they might have learned any given information, so that later if they tell you something different you can tell them "No, you said three sessions ago you studied religion in Candlekeep, you didn't study in Evermeet"? Because that was their basic thrust, that you have players declare their source of knowledge out loud so that they can't retcon it later and you and the other players can call them out or punish them if they try and retcon it. Or does that have nothing to do with what we were talking about?</blockquote>

Verification