Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8722942" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>But the DM doesn't get to rule when Dex saves happen. The Game Rules say that. If the DM suddenly said "The orc swings his axe, make a dexterity saving throw!" I'd be more than a little confused, because the rules for an attack say that the orc should be targeting my AC. </p><p></p><p>Honestly, I've never heard of any situation where a player's action was resolved with a dex save, because dex saves represent dodging and you can't take an action that allows you to dodge an attack via a Dex Save. So, I don't see the correlation at all. And if a DM said "Okay, make a dexterity saving throw to swing on the chandelier" I very much would say, "Um... do you mean an Acrobatics check? Because Dex Saves don't work that way" and if the DM insisted that they get to decide how to resolve actions, so they decided it was a dex save, I would in fact be more than a little miffed at them. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, so previously you said you have no idea if there is anything notable or important in the room. You zeroed in on clues thinking I was stating you set up a mystery. Now you are flipping back, the players are going to search because they don't know. </p><p></p><p>So, back to the question I asked. If there is nothing noteworthy in the room, why aren't you telling your players there is nothing noteworthy, instead of having them waste their time searching? Especially since you have a time pressure and if they knew there was nothing in here, they wouldn't bother. </p><p></p><p>Second question. If there is something noteworthy in the room, then you should know it exists, correct? So why is it you can't know what they may want to find, since you know what is worth finding in the room? And if you are about to type "I don't know" then why do you not know? Because frankly, I do not understand this style of gaming where the DM has no knowledge of anything going on.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And yet, I have found people by looking around the room, noticing what has been changed or moved, or seeing a shadow move, without having to start moving anything.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How can you not know what is important? To me, it is sounding like the players are telling you what is going in the scene, not the other way around. Can you explain this because all I can imagine is the players looking at an item they found off a random chart, explaining the story they just made up about why that item is important, and then you writing it down and making that the truth of the situation. But I have to be wrong about that, right?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Would you tell the bard not to bother giving the fighter inspiration for the roll, since there would be no roll?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Not every monster-infested dungeon or treacherous wilderness tries to kill you every 10 minutes on the dot, to force you to continue moving from the safe zone you just created.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Okay, this directly contradicts what you said before. If when they declare they are moving to the center of the room to look for traps, you allow them to roll a wisdom check to try and find the trap in the center of the room before triggering it, then there is no issue. Previously, you said that it would trigger. </p><p></p><p>Now, if instead you are saying that they had the chance to take a DIFFERENT action that would have given them the chance to find the trap, but moving to the center of the room triggers it regardless, then you are ignoring my point. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See, this makes me think that with the above, you really were saying that they could take a different action. </p><p></p><p>Searching a single room is more complex than searching a single container, but it is still reasonably specific. I can easily picture someone searching an entire room. In fact, I bet I could send you multiple videos of it happening, it is rather trivial. </p><p></p><p> But, that isn't the uncertainty you have. The uncertainty you have is whether or not the trap was activated before they find it. So, if there were no traps in the room, is searching the entire room a reasonable action? You don't need to worry about whether or not they trigger the trap after all. </p><p></p><p>And, since there is uncertainty in the outcome of the action... doesn't this just mean the dice get rolled? If they roll low, they stepped on the trap first, if they rolled high they found the trap first. That seems perfectly within how the rules of the game are supposed to work. If you are worried about the player complaining, then all you have to do is say "I'll let you roll, but if you roll low you will be exposed to any hazards in the room, as a consequence of not spotting them before dealing with them." And if the player still agrees to roll, then they can't turn around and complain, because you told them that would happen.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They don't have to guess AS LONG AS YOU REMEMBERED to tell them the symbol is from their backstory. </p><p></p><p>And if they are making it up, they can't make it up based on it being from Tyr, unless they know it is from Tyr.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And this I think gets back to the point. </p><p></p><p>If a player says "I think back to my Arcane Studies" they will likely get a roll. But if they say "I think back to my Arcane Studies in Tyr" they may auto-succeed... but then they may fail other checks, because being from Tyr there are things they would never see. So the best move would be to be as vague as possible, because that allows you to roll, while never locking you out of succeeding. </p><p></p><p>Or, you get the other method, where they say "I think back to my Arcane Studies in Tyr" then later say "While in Tyr, there was an adjunct professor from Evermeet" and then even later "While in Tyr, while in the class with the adjunct professor from Evermeet, I met a student who had come from Silverymoon." Followed by "While in Tyr, while in the class with the adjunct professor from Evermeet, with the student who had come from Silverymoon, we had a rival who specialized in Diabolic studies."</p><p></p><p>And at the end of the day, you have this convoluted set of circumstances that basically boils down to the same general thing the other player said "I think back to my Arcane Studies". </p><p></p><p>Frankly? I got annoyed with players who constantly made up new random things, because they did so seeking advantage on the check, and it was also specific to this situation, but still general enough that they could make up something new for the next situation. I don't ban people from making up those details, but we mostly do it after the roll if we need to, or just go with the backstory they created before we started.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Which is basically what I assumed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8722942, member: 6801228"] But the DM doesn't get to rule when Dex saves happen. The Game Rules say that. If the DM suddenly said "The orc swings his axe, make a dexterity saving throw!" I'd be more than a little confused, because the rules for an attack say that the orc should be targeting my AC. Honestly, I've never heard of any situation where a player's action was resolved with a dex save, because dex saves represent dodging and you can't take an action that allows you to dodge an attack via a Dex Save. So, I don't see the correlation at all. And if a DM said "Okay, make a dexterity saving throw to swing on the chandelier" I very much would say, "Um... do you mean an Acrobatics check? Because Dex Saves don't work that way" and if the DM insisted that they get to decide how to resolve actions, so they decided it was a dex save, I would in fact be more than a little miffed at them. Okay, so previously you said you have no idea if there is anything notable or important in the room. You zeroed in on clues thinking I was stating you set up a mystery. Now you are flipping back, the players are going to search because they don't know. So, back to the question I asked. If there is nothing noteworthy in the room, why aren't you telling your players there is nothing noteworthy, instead of having them waste their time searching? Especially since you have a time pressure and if they knew there was nothing in here, they wouldn't bother. Second question. If there is something noteworthy in the room, then you should know it exists, correct? So why is it you can't know what they may want to find, since you know what is worth finding in the room? And if you are about to type "I don't know" then why do you not know? Because frankly, I do not understand this style of gaming where the DM has no knowledge of anything going on. And yet, I have found people by looking around the room, noticing what has been changed or moved, or seeing a shadow move, without having to start moving anything. How can you not know what is important? To me, it is sounding like the players are telling you what is going in the scene, not the other way around. Can you explain this because all I can imagine is the players looking at an item they found off a random chart, explaining the story they just made up about why that item is important, and then you writing it down and making that the truth of the situation. But I have to be wrong about that, right? Would you tell the bard not to bother giving the fighter inspiration for the roll, since there would be no roll? Not every monster-infested dungeon or treacherous wilderness tries to kill you every 10 minutes on the dot, to force you to continue moving from the safe zone you just created. Okay, this directly contradicts what you said before. If when they declare they are moving to the center of the room to look for traps, you allow them to roll a wisdom check to try and find the trap in the center of the room before triggering it, then there is no issue. Previously, you said that it would trigger. Now, if instead you are saying that they had the chance to take a DIFFERENT action that would have given them the chance to find the trap, but moving to the center of the room triggers it regardless, then you are ignoring my point. See, this makes me think that with the above, you really were saying that they could take a different action. Searching a single room is more complex than searching a single container, but it is still reasonably specific. I can easily picture someone searching an entire room. In fact, I bet I could send you multiple videos of it happening, it is rather trivial. But, that isn't the uncertainty you have. The uncertainty you have is whether or not the trap was activated before they find it. So, if there were no traps in the room, is searching the entire room a reasonable action? You don't need to worry about whether or not they trigger the trap after all. And, since there is uncertainty in the outcome of the action... doesn't this just mean the dice get rolled? If they roll low, they stepped on the trap first, if they rolled high they found the trap first. That seems perfectly within how the rules of the game are supposed to work. If you are worried about the player complaining, then all you have to do is say "I'll let you roll, but if you roll low you will be exposed to any hazards in the room, as a consequence of not spotting them before dealing with them." And if the player still agrees to roll, then they can't turn around and complain, because you told them that would happen. They don't have to guess AS LONG AS YOU REMEMBERED to tell them the symbol is from their backstory. And if they are making it up, they can't make it up based on it being from Tyr, unless they know it is from Tyr. And this I think gets back to the point. If a player says "I think back to my Arcane Studies" they will likely get a roll. But if they say "I think back to my Arcane Studies in Tyr" they may auto-succeed... but then they may fail other checks, because being from Tyr there are things they would never see. So the best move would be to be as vague as possible, because that allows you to roll, while never locking you out of succeeding. Or, you get the other method, where they say "I think back to my Arcane Studies in Tyr" then later say "While in Tyr, there was an adjunct professor from Evermeet" and then even later "While in Tyr, while in the class with the adjunct professor from Evermeet, I met a student who had come from Silverymoon." Followed by "While in Tyr, while in the class with the adjunct professor from Evermeet, with the student who had come from Silverymoon, we had a rival who specialized in Diabolic studies." And at the end of the day, you have this convoluted set of circumstances that basically boils down to the same general thing the other player said "I think back to my Arcane Studies". Frankly? I got annoyed with players who constantly made up new random things, because they did so seeking advantage on the check, and it was also specific to this situation, but still general enough that they could make up something new for the next situation. I don't ban people from making up those details, but we mostly do it after the roll if we need to, or just go with the backstory they created before we started. Which is basically what I assumed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
Top