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: 8723666" data-attributes="member: 6801228">This has nothing to do with the point under discussion. The point under discussion involves the PC choosing to move to the center of the room to look for traps, activating the trap in the center of the room (which at this point we have established, because I've been discussing this example for over 24 hours) and not getting to roll to detect the trap.You have said they would still get a save, which clarifies a point I acknowledged was unclear, but you have not stated that they still get to roll for their intended action.So you can't understand why people are talking about the assassin stabbing a PC who moved into the "wrong" position, because you have not yet written an encounter involving an Assassin hidden in a room that wants to stab the PCs?Well, let me help you. The rest of us assumed a hostile creature hiding in a room will attack when it has advantage and will deal massive damage from sneak attack (it is an assassin after all). We finished your encounter writing to help demonstrate why we felt that forcing the PC to move and then acting to that move and their intended roll feels bad (Edit: And NOT their intended roll).  If you want to say that the assassin is totally friendly and would rather hug the PCs, that's great, but I'm sure you can imagine a scenario where they stab instead, and can use that to understand our context for why we feel like "right position" and "wrong position" shouldn't matter more than the stated intent of the PC to find hidden threats.Needlessly interpolating a hostile attitude when you further clarified with traps and hazards on the walls, and the entire point being about which traps the PCs haplessly fall into. Right. Wonder why I keep thinking the hypothetical DM might be slightly hostile.Also... why is it a problem to skip past a scene if there are no hazards present? You literally do it all the time, I guarantee you. After all, you don't ask which order they leave their rooms in the inn right? You don't ask them if they eat their potatoes before they drink their ale, right? We skip past non-hazards all the time. If the important part was the PCs declaring they go over non-hazardous walls, then it doesn't matter how they did it, they succeeded.The only problem I can see with it is that the moment you stop and ask, the players are now on alert that something is up. Which can be a good thing. Not only does this mean I'm not wasting my time with them being paranoid about non-hazardous scenes, but it also means that they are more engaged and prepared when those hazards show up. Win-Win as far as I am concerned.It is interesting that you are taking a game that does not require cheating and reading into it an accusation of cheating. Three-Card Monte is a game you do not need to cheat at. I used it as an example of the player having three seemingly identical options with little to do but guess which one is safe.Maybe poison ivy is such a minor nuisance I don't bother to put it in my games <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷‍♂️" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937-2642.png" title="Man shrugging    :man_shrugging:" data-shortname=":man_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />Honestly, it seems this entire discussion has resolved around traps, which all of these discussions end up revolving around, and I think just illustrates that traps are a pain and barely worth the effort to include in the game at all. I'd much prefer the occasional set-piece puzzle trap over a player interrogating gardeners to make sure there are no patches of poison ivy on any walls they might possibly climb.Also, I love how it is always a player needing to make "smart" decisions. This language always pops up and it is always problematic.</blockquote>

Verification