Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8725876" data-attributes="member: 6801228">We knew that when we started. You just seem to find discussing differences in style and goal a complete waste of your time. Because any time I critique your style, you just seem to shrug and say "so what? I don't care" and move on.  So, you understand that seeing is passive and looking is active. So you can understand that the passive check is different than the active check. So, again. I can use my eyes to receive visual information and "look" and that is very different than just seeing passively. So when calling for an Active Perception roll, that's the difference. I understand you don't rule it that way and you bundle everything into passive skills for some reason, but do you at least finally understand the difference and why I can narrate a difference between the two? If things happening in the location don't matter, why are you bothering with them at all?But besides that, you know what is happening in that location, so you know what is important to convey that information within that location. You don't need for the location to have some grand importance to the sixteen act structure of the campaign to be able to have important things happening within the microcosm of the location. Wait? Is that it? Do you think I'm using "important" to mean something like an item introduced at level 3 will have some significance to the grand plot by level 15? No. I'm talking in here, in this moment, maybe foreshadowing since I do tend to have larger goals than just the single location (I've found, "go do whatever" tends to leave players just staring at me asking what they should do and where they should go. Overarching goals and working in opposition to something else helps them be more focused. "Here's a problem, do you want to fix it? Okay, how do you want to fix it?" works way better) To me this reads like you create stuff, give it importance, then turn around and say that you have no idea what could possibly be important. If i t has a connection to the location and tells them something about the location, it is important. What else could it possibly be? How is it not important? Honestly, what do you consider important? I've tried to explain this multiple times and your answers make no sense. So let's flip roles. What would you define as important in a location? And for the love of all that is holy, don't just say "I don't know" explain why you can't know and then an example of what would be and what wouldn't be important within the location. Unless this is entirely a "I don't know what will matter six sessions down the line" which isn't what I'm talking about. No it isn't. It is basic, likely to backfire, and possibly lead to far more problems than it solved. But catching things on fire is the only thing they have left other than letting themselves get stabbed, That bolded part? That is BS. That is "You wanted the sword, I stabbed you with the sword and arguably now you have it. Your intent was fully realized." It is a fundamentally sadistic twisting of their words.No one asks to look for traps with the intent of setting off the trap in their face. They look for traps so they don't set the traps off. That's the entire point. As for disputing the trap being set off. MAYBE HAVE THEM ROLL TO SEE THE TRAP FIRST! I'm pretty sure you are a person who moves through space and has eyes, so I'm certain you have been moving through physical space and noticed something before stepping on it. You insisted that they had to "change the situation" to get a chance to roll to find traps. Well, they did. They started moving, everything is now changed, they want to look fro traps. Why are you declaring and ruling that they automatically fail to find the trap? Let them roll before setting off the trap, it isn't hard. They aren't robots who must move to a location before running the proper script. How is looking for danger different than looking for secret doors? That is the same thing. Hint: Everyone knows that a secret door can be used to hide an ambushWhat difference is there between making a map and navigating? They are the same thing. And finally, this has NOTHING to do with my point. Okay, fine, they (while in a clearly hostile and dangerous location) made the choice to look for danger. And you decide that looking at number A and looking at number B, they fail. Wonderful. Then they make a NEW choice, with the intent of trying to spot that danger again. You insist they need to take a new action. So they do. You auto-fail them and trigger the damage, because "how else could I rule it?" Again, any argument that triggering a trap is finding a trap is BS and sadistic sophistry. Secondly, you are big on decisions, but you seem to missed something. The player's decision isn't made in a vacuum. Informed decisions are one way to prevent a decision from actually being random chance, and the player clearly wasn't making an informed decision to step on a trap. But again, INTENT MATTERS. Let us say the player is at a fancy  ball, I describe people dancing in the crowded room and the duke talking to a group of generals. The player says "I want to go across the room and talk to the Duke about the Dragon War". So I say sure, you march across the room, shoving people out of your way, and interrupt the Duke's conversation, everyone is pissed at you and now you have to figure out how to not get thrown out of the party. Decisions have consequences and sometimes bad things happen, right? Except, clearly the player did not intend to be rude. Despite the fact that I clearly followed their declared actions (move across the crowded room and talk to the Duke who is in the middle of a conversation) I completely ignored and ruined their intent. I was in fact actively hostile towards their intent. You are doing almost the same thing. "Well, you said you moved to the center of the room, the trap was in the center of the room. There is no other choice, I gave you telegraphed clues. But you did find the trap in the room at least." Why not assume an approach that is uncertain then? Then you don't have to assume if it would fail or not fail. The player may not want to give you a detailed breakdown of their every action, you've said repeatedly you don't require that, but when we give vague actions your response is you need more detail. Why? So far the only reason has been "because there is a trap in this room and I need to know if you automatically trigger it or not?" and I find that a poor reason. So, the approach was uncertain, they rolled well, but even then you need even more information to determine if they find the door or not? Because even an uncertain result turning positive isn't good enough? It was a thorough search, how close to an inch-by-inch search do I need to get before you can determine if a thorough search checked the bookcase or not? A thorough search would check everything. That's what thorough means. If you see player intent as so easily discarded, then I don't know if continuing to have a conversation will ever lead to anything productive. I can't imagine dismissing my players so casually. Right, so you rely on your method because it is just auto-successes all the time. And so when you encounter someone who has failed, you can't understand why they might see the possibility of failure. Yes, I too could describe everything in excruciatingly precise detail to eliminate any reasonable chance of failure on my end. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a spoon. It is so mind-numbingly irritating and then it gets to the point where the DM, tired of me never taking any risks, punishes me for never taking any risks, making all the risk avoidance worthless. So, you can't understand why someone would risk a die roll that could fail? Because every described action that doesn't rely on die roll can fail too. Both methods have equal chance of failure, so it doesn't matter which you choose. And yet one of those received an auto-pass and the other a roll (or an auto-failure in some cases), so clearly there must be some skill involved. There are people who are professionally trained in stealth, can you accept that is a thing and that they know how to hide more effectively than people not trained without resorting to "any child who played hide and seek can hide"? When the Fellowship decides to go to Moira is Gimli wanting to run through it as fast as possible to get to Mount Doom as quickly and efficiently as possible? If you think so, we got very different impressions of that story.Weirdly, it seems that a story involving a party of Nine people might have had more than one character with more than one goal in it.</blockquote>

Verification