Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8725988" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>I have no investment in trying to convince you to like the way I run the game. That seems like it would indeed be a waste of time to try to do.</p><p></p><p>I have understood all along that you treat passive checks as passive on the character’s part. I think I have made it quite clear throughout this entire thread that I treat passive checks as a way to resolve repeated or continual active actions without a die roll (making them “passive” on the player’s part). This appears to me to be consistent with how the rules say they work. I am on record saying I think they were poorly named.</p><p></p><p>How many times will I have to tell you that I don’t know if they will matter or not before you will stop saying they don’t matter?</p><p></p><p>I know what I need to convey to the players for them to be able to make informed decisions, if that’s what you mean. I don’t gate any of that information behind checks though, so I don’t know how this is relevant to the discussion.</p><p></p><p>The game has a built-in overarching goal of accumulating experience and levels. That incentive structure can be leveraged to encourage more specific behavior - XP for treasure, for example, creates an overarching goal of gaining wealth. Requiring training to level up adds an additional sub-goal of finding suitable trainers. XP for combat creates an overarching goal of fighting powerful foes. XP for completing objectives allows for many small goals, in the form of quests. And of course, players often create their own individual character goals.</p><p></p><p>I don’t know, I don’t understand how you’re using the word “important” and at this point we’ve strayed so far afield of the topic in discussing “importance” that I fail to see any value in continuing to litigate it.</p><p></p><p>I don’t know how to answer this then because I don’t know what you <em>are</em> talking about.</p><p></p><p>I disagree that it’s the only thing they have left. Create a distraction of some kind, or try to trick the goblin into attacking too soon, try to wait it out… Hell, just up and leave if you really can’t think of anything else and flat out refuse to risk getting hit once by a goblin.</p><p></p><p>Whatever, if you prefer to call it failing, be my guest; what word we use for it doesn’t really affect the (fictional) reality of the situation.</p><p></p><p>Yes, obviously, but sometimes in trying to do something, you fail to achieve your intent. Especially when in trying to find a trap you step right on its trigger mechanism.</p><p></p><p>I am doing no such thing. They first got to make a check to try and find the trap; a special kind of check called a passive check, which is used to represent the results of an action performed repeatedly. Just because you don’t like that the mechanic I used to resolve that action didn’t involve a die roll doesn’t mean you didn’t actually have a chance. They second of all got a description of the room, including some manner of telegraph of the presence of the trap in the middle of the room. Just because you don’t like that it’s possible to misinterpret that telegraph doesn’t mean it didn’t give you the opportunity to make a decision that could have avoided setting up the trap. They third of all could have described any number of actions that didn’t involve moving to the center of the room. And, even in the case that they do, they get an additional opportunity to describe a reaction to the trap going off that could completely avoid the trap, all before any saving throw needs to be made. There are so many points in this process that could have resulted in a different outcome, but you seem to be so hung up on this one very specific possibility that you would refuse to engage with this scenario. It seriously resembles a hypervigilance response to past trauma.</p><p></p><p>Again, they got to make a check, it just didn’t involve a die roll. That is what I understand the rules to say to do in this instance.</p><p></p><p>The difference is all of these things are discrete activities the rules lay out as options you can perform only one of at a time while traveling or exploring. And it does make sense - the person making the map is absorbed in recording their surroundings on paper; the person navigating is absorbed in searching the environment for landmarks to insure they remain on their intended route; the character searching for secret doors is absorbed in carefully scouring the walls, floor, ceiling, etc. for anything out of the ordinary - I’d say you could make a good argument that this character is better positioned to spot traps than one watching and listening for monsters that may be lurking in the shadows or around any corner.</p><p></p><p>I don’t see anything wrong with that summary, except perhaps that you neglected to mention the fact that the description of the environment would have contained clues as to the danger inherent in standing in the center of the room. Clues the players might or might not pick up on, true enough, but it’s not as if they’re forced to guess blindly. They have the information, it’s up to them how they will use it.</p><p></p><p>They absolutely were, that’s what the telegraphing is for.</p><p></p><p>Yes, and so does approach. That’s why I ask for both.</p><p></p><p>Here you have added something to the player’s description, which is something I ask for specifics in order to avoid having happen.</p><p></p><p>You didn’t only ignore their intent, you changed their stated approach.</p><p></p><p>But it was the player, not me, who (hypothetically) said they moved to the center of the room. It was you, not the player, who (hypothetically) said the character shoved people aside and interrupted the conversation.</p><p></p><p>I do not want to assume <em>any</em> approach, certain or uncertain. It is the player’s role to describe their action clearly enough that I will not need to assume their approach.</p><p></p><p>In this specific scenario contrived specifically to illustrate that sometimes this DMing style can result in PCs setting off traps? Yes. There are infinitely many possible scenarios in which the specifics of goal and approach matter for reasons other than figuring out if the character sets off a trap.</p><p></p><p>I told you. Specific enough that if the player and I both play out the action like a little movie in our heads, those movies would look pretty similar.</p><p></p><p>I’m not dismissing intent, it’s one of two essential components of an action declaration. But nor am I glossing over approach, the other essential component. If I am accounting for both, I see no way that trying to find a trap by moving to the center of a room, when there is a trap that will be set off by someone standing in the center of the room, could have any result other than setting off the trap.</p><p></p><p>Ok. That’s your preference. I’m not going to force you to play that way if you don’t want to.</p><p></p><p>It has absolutely not been my experience that asking to make a check has an equal chance of failure to describing an action in terms of goal and approach with the intent of achieving success without a roll.</p><p></p><p>Yeah, some. Skill most people will have picked up in childhood.</p><p></p><p>Yes, and accordingly, characters with such skill will be much more likely to succeed when success is uncertain.</p><p></p><p>When they encounter conflict in Moria, yes, I do think Gimli wants to resolve that conflict as quickly and efficiently as possible.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8725988, member: 6779196"] I have no investment in trying to convince you to like the way I run the game. That seems like it would indeed be a waste of time to try to do. I have understood all along that you treat passive checks as passive on the character’s part. I think I have made it quite clear throughout this entire thread that I treat passive checks as a way to resolve repeated or continual active actions without a die roll (making them “passive” on the player’s part). This appears to me to be consistent with how the rules say they work. I am on record saying I think they were poorly named. How many times will I have to tell you that I don’t know if they will matter or not before you will stop saying they don’t matter? I know what I need to convey to the players for them to be able to make informed decisions, if that’s what you mean. I don’t gate any of that information behind checks though, so I don’t know how this is relevant to the discussion. The game has a built-in overarching goal of accumulating experience and levels. That incentive structure can be leveraged to encourage more specific behavior - XP for treasure, for example, creates an overarching goal of gaining wealth. Requiring training to level up adds an additional sub-goal of finding suitable trainers. XP for combat creates an overarching goal of fighting powerful foes. XP for completing objectives allows for many small goals, in the form of quests. And of course, players often create their own individual character goals. I don’t know, I don’t understand how you’re using the word “important” and at this point we’ve strayed so far afield of the topic in discussing “importance” that I fail to see any value in continuing to litigate it. I don’t know how to answer this then because I don’t know what you [I]are[/I] talking about. I disagree that it’s the only thing they have left. Create a distraction of some kind, or try to trick the goblin into attacking too soon, try to wait it out… Hell, just up and leave if you really can’t think of anything else and flat out refuse to risk getting hit once by a goblin. Whatever, if you prefer to call it failing, be my guest; what word we use for it doesn’t really affect the (fictional) reality of the situation. Yes, obviously, but sometimes in trying to do something, you fail to achieve your intent. Especially when in trying to find a trap you step right on its trigger mechanism. I am doing no such thing. They first got to make a check to try and find the trap; a special kind of check called a passive check, which is used to represent the results of an action performed repeatedly. Just because you don’t like that the mechanic I used to resolve that action didn’t involve a die roll doesn’t mean you didn’t actually have a chance. They second of all got a description of the room, including some manner of telegraph of the presence of the trap in the middle of the room. Just because you don’t like that it’s possible to misinterpret that telegraph doesn’t mean it didn’t give you the opportunity to make a decision that could have avoided setting up the trap. They third of all could have described any number of actions that didn’t involve moving to the center of the room. And, even in the case that they do, they get an additional opportunity to describe a reaction to the trap going off that could completely avoid the trap, all before any saving throw needs to be made. There are so many points in this process that could have resulted in a different outcome, but you seem to be so hung up on this one very specific possibility that you would refuse to engage with this scenario. It seriously resembles a hypervigilance response to past trauma. Again, they got to make a check, it just didn’t involve a die roll. That is what I understand the rules to say to do in this instance. The difference is all of these things are discrete activities the rules lay out as options you can perform only one of at a time while traveling or exploring. And it does make sense - the person making the map is absorbed in recording their surroundings on paper; the person navigating is absorbed in searching the environment for landmarks to insure they remain on their intended route; the character searching for secret doors is absorbed in carefully scouring the walls, floor, ceiling, etc. for anything out of the ordinary - I’d say you could make a good argument that this character is better positioned to spot traps than one watching and listening for monsters that may be lurking in the shadows or around any corner. I don’t see anything wrong with that summary, except perhaps that you neglected to mention the fact that the description of the environment would have contained clues as to the danger inherent in standing in the center of the room. Clues the players might or might not pick up on, true enough, but it’s not as if they’re forced to guess blindly. They have the information, it’s up to them how they will use it. They absolutely were, that’s what the telegraphing is for. Yes, and so does approach. That’s why I ask for both. Here you have added something to the player’s description, which is something I ask for specifics in order to avoid having happen. You didn’t only ignore their intent, you changed their stated approach. But it was the player, not me, who (hypothetically) said they moved to the center of the room. It was you, not the player, who (hypothetically) said the character shoved people aside and interrupted the conversation. I do not want to assume [I]any[/I] approach, certain or uncertain. It is the player’s role to describe their action clearly enough that I will not need to assume their approach. In this specific scenario contrived specifically to illustrate that sometimes this DMing style can result in PCs setting off traps? Yes. There are infinitely many possible scenarios in which the specifics of goal and approach matter for reasons other than figuring out if the character sets off a trap. I told you. Specific enough that if the player and I both play out the action like a little movie in our heads, those movies would look pretty similar. I’m not dismissing intent, it’s one of two essential components of an action declaration. But nor am I glossing over approach, the other essential component. If I am accounting for both, I see no way that trying to find a trap by moving to the center of a room, when there is a trap that will be set off by someone standing in the center of the room, could have any result other than setting off the trap. Ok. That’s your preference. I’m not going to force you to play that way if you don’t want to. It has absolutely not been my experience that asking to make a check has an equal chance of failure to describing an action in terms of goal and approach with the intent of achieving success without a roll. Yeah, some. Skill most people will have picked up in childhood. Yes, and accordingly, characters with such skill will be much more likely to succeed when success is uncertain. When they encounter conflict in Moria, yes, I do think Gimli wants to resolve that conflict as quickly and efficiently as possible. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
Top