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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
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: 8726310" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>You don't engage in critical discussions to convince other people to like things. Therefore, that isn't a concern.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>None of this answers the question I asked. </p><p></p><p>Do you understand that a different DM, by picturing "looking" instead of "seeing", can see an action that would be rolled? </p><p></p><p></p><p>We can debate whether or not a DM could determine that the break in the action allows them to make an active check instead of it being considered part of their repeated and continual check afterwards. But first I need to know if you can understand why a DM might take that action as something that can be rolled. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because you originally said that you make random items that have "indeterminate" importance. We then got the random arrow of Dragonslaying that had no importance until the players randomly fought a dragon. I said that item was therefore not important, and that I would have put it in as a clue to the deeper story going in at the location. You have since indicated that you do the same thing, you roll these items randomly, but then you tie them into the... whatever you want to call the things going on at the location, since you seem to utterly reject the terms I would use to describe it. </p><p></p><p>Now you are saying that since that item is tied to the location in a logical way to inform what is going on at that location that you wouldn't gate it behind a check? Which is true, because it would be gated behind the players declaring actions to auto-succeed, but I still don't think that is what you meant. </p><p></p><p>So which is it? Do you know or do you not know which items are important enough to be clues to the events happening at the location and its history? You keep saying you have no idea until the players declare it is important, but that you also tie the items logically into the location, which means to me you have figured out they are important.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Two things</p><p></p><p>1) The story of how Bob the Fighter gained Experience Points in random unconnected encounters is utterly boring. No one I'm playing with is playing to get levels and experience. No one is interested in that. Do we want levels? Sure, but it isn't the goal of play. </p><p></p><p>2) We don't use experience points or trainers. I want to encourage people to engage with the world, but since I can't figure out how much XP talking to the washer woman and developing a budding relationship is worth, it isn't worth it for me to use XP. We've used milestones basically since before 5e.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe instead of continously saying "I don't know" or "I don't understand" or "My players decide" you could actually give me some counter-examples to help highlight where our definitions aren't meeting? Because I've tried giving you example after example, and you either declare you don't do that, because your players decide, or you don't understand.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Right, because leaving a murderous goblin at your back would NEVER backfire. The fire plan is the only way I can think to get it to attack two people outside the room instead of one person in the room, I guess maybe you could try and set an ambush, but since you would be continously and repeatedly looking for the goblin to spring the ambush, it would be a passive check, and we've already proven that is going to fail.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But it does affect the claim of you, in choosing to have them fail, ignoring their intent.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So, by declaring their action to try and get an auto-success, they instead got an auto-failure. Because they picked the wrong approach. </p><p></p><p>So, do you still not comprehend how someone could feel like rolling the dice is equally fair, since it is never an auto-fail?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And you do nothing but repeat yourself, which seriously resembles not caring beyond getting to trigger the trap on the player who made the wrong call. Maybe we don't accuse people of things and actually address the points presented? Might get more progress that way.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Firstly, the rules are supposed to cover multiple scenarios in travel. From overland to travel through a dungeon. This is important. </p><p></p><p>What is the goal of navigating? To prevent the group from getting lost by making a Wisdom (Survival) check. </p><p>What is the goal of mapmaking? To allow the group to track their progress and not get lost. No check. </p><p></p><p>Now, maybe you think that someone is making Survival checks (which is used for tracking, hunting wild game, moving through the natural world, predicting weather and avoiding natural hazards) to navigate through a catacomb or maybe you think someone mapping a forest where everything looks the same allows them to avoid getting lost. However, I think it is blatantly clear that map-making is meant for dungeons and navigating is meant for overland travel. </p><p></p><p>Also, would you accept as a player a DM who allows you to be ambushed, when you specifically are looking for ambushes, because the enemies were hiding behind a secret door and you weren't looking for secret doors? To me, this is again a total break of the player's intent and just playing word games to ensure defeat. </p><p></p><p>Finally, I would note that there is no special action for noticing secret doors or looking for traps. Both of those and looking for ambushes are all covered under simply Noticing Threats and the rules for passive perception.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>They only have the information if they pick up on the clue. If they do not, they are blindly guessing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except approach can overshadow and destroy intent. Intent doesn't matter. Approach does.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I did not change their approach at all. They stated they were moving across the room. How else could I have possibly ruled it except to have them move across the room? </p><p></p><p>After all, you never said that the player moving into the center of the trap room needed to declare how they were moving. Clearly if they had been moving slowly, examining each brick as they went, they woulnd't have triggered the trap. But that didn't matter, they said they move to the center of the room, you assumed they did so in a manner which meant they could not possibly see the trap before they triggered it. </p><p></p><p>In both cases the player can complain "but I didn't say I was moving [insert description here]" and I assume in the instance of the trap you would shrug and say that they should have said differently. The only difference is that in-character my version is more obviously a bad idea. But nothing about the process has changed. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And there are infinitely many possible scenarios in which the specifics of the approach do not matter. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So if in my movie the character went left to right and in your movie they went right to left, then you haven't received enough detail because our movies would differ. So would a movie where one person is making notes in a pad of paper and the other person is leaving chalk marks next to the items as they search them. Very different looking, so you'll need to know whether or not the player does that, correct? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I have trivially given you that way. They notice it before they step on it, view a detail they notice because of the change in perspective or from getting closer. That is the way that it could have a different result other than setting off the trap. </p><p></p><p>But to reach that point, you cannot have the approach invalidate the intent. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You couldn't if you tried. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And it has absolutely been my experience. Because over and over again, the intent didn't matter, only the actions I stated. </p><p></p><p>So, maybe instead of just assuming your way will almost always lead to success, imagine for a moment that your way leads to a percentage chance for success or failure, just like rolling the dice. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Stealth is more complicated than what 8 year olds can do. If you refuse to accept this, you will never understand the position. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So Gimli had zero interest in learning what happened to his family and just wanted to pass through the mines and get to Mount Doom as fast as possible? Weird. I remember that actually being something he cared about a lot. Meanwhile, I don't think Samwise cared at all about the mines or what happened. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Hmmm, your intent not mattering affected the story? I wonder where that could tie into our ongoing conversation?</p><p></p><p>Now, I will agree, failing forward is better than failing with no progress, but that has little to nothing to do with anything except all of us acknowleding fail forward is superior to stonewalling.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Huh, wonder if you missed something that was telegraphed? It certainly sounds like that is something that sometimes happens in games. I've heard that repeatedly from you after all. </p><p></p><p>And, well, you can't get too upset, because the DM decides how the resolve the situation as per the rules, you've said that too. </p><p></p><p>Weird how this one example of things not working like you intended seemed to have struck such a nerve with you.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The DM clearly thought the world was responding to your input in a believable way, why else would they rule the way they did?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But you feel strongly enough to state that if you were not going to get some sort of mechanical benefit in exchange for your engagement, then your engagement with the game was pointless and you should have been playing Candy Crush instead.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8726310, member: 6801228"] You don't engage in critical discussions to convince other people to like things. Therefore, that isn't a concern. None of this answers the question I asked. Do you understand that a different DM, by picturing "looking" instead of "seeing", can see an action that would be rolled? We can debate whether or not a DM could determine that the break in the action allows them to make an active check instead of it being considered part of their repeated and continual check afterwards. But first I need to know if you can understand why a DM might take that action as something that can be rolled. Because you originally said that you make random items that have "indeterminate" importance. We then got the random arrow of Dragonslaying that had no importance until the players randomly fought a dragon. I said that item was therefore not important, and that I would have put it in as a clue to the deeper story going in at the location. You have since indicated that you do the same thing, you roll these items randomly, but then you tie them into the... whatever you want to call the things going on at the location, since you seem to utterly reject the terms I would use to describe it. Now you are saying that since that item is tied to the location in a logical way to inform what is going on at that location that you wouldn't gate it behind a check? Which is true, because it would be gated behind the players declaring actions to auto-succeed, but I still don't think that is what you meant. So which is it? Do you know or do you not know which items are important enough to be clues to the events happening at the location and its history? You keep saying you have no idea until the players declare it is important, but that you also tie the items logically into the location, which means to me you have figured out they are important. Two things 1) The story of how Bob the Fighter gained Experience Points in random unconnected encounters is utterly boring. No one I'm playing with is playing to get levels and experience. No one is interested in that. Do we want levels? Sure, but it isn't the goal of play. 2) We don't use experience points or trainers. I want to encourage people to engage with the world, but since I can't figure out how much XP talking to the washer woman and developing a budding relationship is worth, it isn't worth it for me to use XP. We've used milestones basically since before 5e. Maybe instead of continously saying "I don't know" or "I don't understand" or "My players decide" you could actually give me some counter-examples to help highlight where our definitions aren't meeting? Because I've tried giving you example after example, and you either declare you don't do that, because your players decide, or you don't understand. Right, because leaving a murderous goblin at your back would NEVER backfire. The fire plan is the only way I can think to get it to attack two people outside the room instead of one person in the room, I guess maybe you could try and set an ambush, but since you would be continously and repeatedly looking for the goblin to spring the ambush, it would be a passive check, and we've already proven that is going to fail. But it does affect the claim of you, in choosing to have them fail, ignoring their intent. So, by declaring their action to try and get an auto-success, they instead got an auto-failure. Because they picked the wrong approach. So, do you still not comprehend how someone could feel like rolling the dice is equally fair, since it is never an auto-fail? And you do nothing but repeat yourself, which seriously resembles not caring beyond getting to trigger the trap on the player who made the wrong call. Maybe we don't accuse people of things and actually address the points presented? Might get more progress that way. Firstly, the rules are supposed to cover multiple scenarios in travel. From overland to travel through a dungeon. This is important. What is the goal of navigating? To prevent the group from getting lost by making a Wisdom (Survival) check. What is the goal of mapmaking? To allow the group to track their progress and not get lost. No check. Now, maybe you think that someone is making Survival checks (which is used for tracking, hunting wild game, moving through the natural world, predicting weather and avoiding natural hazards) to navigate through a catacomb or maybe you think someone mapping a forest where everything looks the same allows them to avoid getting lost. However, I think it is blatantly clear that map-making is meant for dungeons and navigating is meant for overland travel. Also, would you accept as a player a DM who allows you to be ambushed, when you specifically are looking for ambushes, because the enemies were hiding behind a secret door and you weren't looking for secret doors? To me, this is again a total break of the player's intent and just playing word games to ensure defeat. Finally, I would note that there is no special action for noticing secret doors or looking for traps. Both of those and looking for ambushes are all covered under simply Noticing Threats and the rules for passive perception. They only have the information if they pick up on the clue. If they do not, they are blindly guessing. Except approach can overshadow and destroy intent. Intent doesn't matter. Approach does. I did not change their approach at all. They stated they were moving across the room. How else could I have possibly ruled it except to have them move across the room? After all, you never said that the player moving into the center of the trap room needed to declare how they were moving. Clearly if they had been moving slowly, examining each brick as they went, they woulnd't have triggered the trap. But that didn't matter, they said they move to the center of the room, you assumed they did so in a manner which meant they could not possibly see the trap before they triggered it. In both cases the player can complain "but I didn't say I was moving [insert description here]" and I assume in the instance of the trap you would shrug and say that they should have said differently. The only difference is that in-character my version is more obviously a bad idea. But nothing about the process has changed. And there are infinitely many possible scenarios in which the specifics of the approach do not matter. So if in my movie the character went left to right and in your movie they went right to left, then you haven't received enough detail because our movies would differ. So would a movie where one person is making notes in a pad of paper and the other person is leaving chalk marks next to the items as they search them. Very different looking, so you'll need to know whether or not the player does that, correct? And I have trivially given you that way. They notice it before they step on it, view a detail they notice because of the change in perspective or from getting closer. That is the way that it could have a different result other than setting off the trap. But to reach that point, you cannot have the approach invalidate the intent. You couldn't if you tried. And it has absolutely been my experience. Because over and over again, the intent didn't matter, only the actions I stated. So, maybe instead of just assuming your way will almost always lead to success, imagine for a moment that your way leads to a percentage chance for success or failure, just like rolling the dice. Stealth is more complicated than what 8 year olds can do. If you refuse to accept this, you will never understand the position. So Gimli had zero interest in learning what happened to his family and just wanted to pass through the mines and get to Mount Doom as fast as possible? Weird. I remember that actually being something he cared about a lot. Meanwhile, I don't think Samwise cared at all about the mines or what happened. Hmmm, your intent not mattering affected the story? I wonder where that could tie into our ongoing conversation? Now, I will agree, failing forward is better than failing with no progress, but that has little to nothing to do with anything except all of us acknowleding fail forward is superior to stonewalling. Huh, wonder if you missed something that was telegraphed? It certainly sounds like that is something that sometimes happens in games. I've heard that repeatedly from you after all. And, well, you can't get too upset, because the DM decides how the resolve the situation as per the rules, you've said that too. Weird how this one example of things not working like you intended seemed to have struck such a nerve with you. The DM clearly thought the world was responding to your input in a believable way, why else would they rule the way they did? But you feel strongly enough to state that if you were not going to get some sort of mechanical benefit in exchange for your engagement, then your engagement with the game was pointless and you should have been playing Candy Crush instead. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
Top