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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8726364" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Indeed, and since that avenue of discussion has lead nowhere, I no longer care to pursue it.</p><p></p><p>I literally just told you that I have understood this the entire time.</p><p></p><p>Sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point.</p><p></p><p>Great, so once again we have arrived at “we have different preferences.” So glad I’ve spent the last three freaking days hashing that out with you <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="🙄" title="Face with rolling eyes :rolling_eyes:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" data-shortname=":rolling_eyes:" /></p><p></p><p>I’ve been giving examples of things throughout this conversation. I don’t know what you want me to give you an example of at this point.</p><p></p><p>If that’s your assessment of the situation, you would be welcome to try the fire plan. I still think it was a perfectly fine plan. As an aside, it’s really strange to me that you assume a passive check is always going to fail. Though I suppose it might explain why you refuse to accept it as a means of resolving an attempt to find something by looking around.</p><p></p><p>I’ve never not been able to comprehend it, I just think it’s bizarre. Seems like your paranoia over the possibility of failure is holding you back from seeking success. A common enough phenomenon, I guess.</p><p></p><p>I don’t think that’s evidenced in our conversation.</p><p></p><p>Bavigating is certainly not typically necessary in dungeons. Mapping is quite useful in both cases. Point being, there are many distinct exploration activities a character might engage in that would preclude keeping watch for danger (and thereby making a passive perception check), so it is indeed a choice.</p><p></p><p>I would disagree that such a ruling is consistent with either the letter or intent of the rules, but I would accept the ruling because that’s the DM’s call to make, not mine. If I often found myself disagreeing with the DM’s rulings I might bring it up at a later time, and/or decide not to continue playing in their game.</p><p></p><p>A secret door is not a threat, so I would not consider that the same activity as Noticing Threats, but yes, looking for ambushes and traps are both covered under the same activity, which I misremembered as being called “keeping watch for danger.” Looking for secret doors is not specifically listed as a travel activity, but it is given specifically as an example of an action that one could use a passive check to resolve performing repeatedly.</p><p></p><p>The clue is the information. The possibility that they may misinterpret the information does not mean that the decisions they make were not informed decisions.</p><p></p><p>An approach can certainly prevent intent from being achievable. If my intent is to tie my shoes and my approach is to yell at the laces to move, my approach has no chance of succeeding at achieving my goal. But both things would be necessary information for someone to determine if my overall action could succeed or fail.</p><p></p><p>There are many ways one might move across a room without shoving people. If you felt the action declaration was not specific enough, you should have asked for further clarification. But what you did instead was established a more specific approach that the player did not specify, which again, is exactly what my method of action resolution is designed to prevent from happening.</p><p></p><p>My understanding was that the trap is triggered by standing in the center of the room. How slowly you walk to the center of the room will have no effect on whether or not the trap that triggered by standing in the center of the room will be triggered when you stand in the center of the room.</p><p></p><p>What they are able to see was already established in the initial description. If they wanted to change what they could see, they would need to have interacted with the environment in some way.</p><p></p><p>What could the player possibly have said differently about how they moved to the center of the room that would not have resulted in the trap that triggers when someone stands in the center of the room from triggering once they got to the center of the room?</p><p></p><p>That’s just factually untrue. The specifics of the approach are necessary to determine if it can succeed in achieving the goal, or if it can fail to do so.</p><p></p><p>Probably, though I’ve lost track of the example scenario you’re talking about here.</p><p></p><p>So, by them not completing the action they declared?</p><p></p><p>I don’t know what this means.</p><p></p><p>What a strange thing to say.</p><p></p><p>It does neither. It often results in automatic success. Sometimes, it results in needing to make a roll of some sort to succeed. And occasionally, it results in failure, though fairly rarely, and more often than not, inconsequentially.</p><p></p><p>I haven’t claimed otherwise.</p><p></p><p>You ignored the part where I said “when they encountered conflict.”</p><p></p><p>My intent did matter, the issue was my approach not mattering.</p><p></p><p><img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="🤣" title="Rolling on the floor laughing :rofl:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png" data-shortname=":rofl:" /><img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="🤣" title="Rolling on the floor laughing :rofl:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png" data-shortname=":rofl:" /><img class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" alt="🤣" title="Rolling on the floor laughing :rofl:" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f923.png" data-shortname=":rofl:" /> no. This DM was not one for telegraphing.</p><p></p><p>Yes, and I accepted that ruling. I accepted a lot of rulings he made that I disagreed with. Occasionally, we discussed those disagreements outside of game time. Eventually, I decided the game was not for me and left.</p><p></p><p>It was one example that I mentioned, because it was relevant to the discussion. There were many more examples of rulings I thought were poor ones in that campaign. That one wasn’t even particularly egregious, just kind of annoying. I could give you some worse ones if you want. Ultimately though, nah, not a big deal. I decided that group wasn’t a good fit for me and moved on. I think the campaign is actually still going, and I’m sure the folks who stayed did so because they enjoyed it. Different strokes.</p><p></p><p>Literally because I rolled low,</p><p></p><p>I said it would have made no difference had I been playing Candy Crush instead, which is true. I happen to know that other players in that campaign regularly goofed off in other tabs. It bothered me quite a bit that actually engaging in the game was treated no differently than tabbing out until the DM shut up and then pushing one of the “make something else happen” buttons on the character sheet. It did not make for a believable world, because the world didn’t really respond to player inputs, it just did whatever the octopus in the DM’s brain decided the random numbers meant would happen next.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8726364, member: 6779196"] Indeed, and since that avenue of discussion has lead nowhere, I no longer care to pursue it. I literally just told you that I have understood this the entire time. Sorry, I have no idea what you’re talking about at this point. Great, so once again we have arrived at “we have different preferences.” So glad I’ve spent the last three freaking days hashing that out with you 🙄 I’ve been giving examples of things throughout this conversation. I don’t know what you want me to give you an example of at this point. If that’s your assessment of the situation, you would be welcome to try the fire plan. I still think it was a perfectly fine plan. As an aside, it’s really strange to me that you assume a passive check is always going to fail. Though I suppose it might explain why you refuse to accept it as a means of resolving an attempt to find something by looking around. I’ve never not been able to comprehend it, I just think it’s bizarre. Seems like your paranoia over the possibility of failure is holding you back from seeking success. A common enough phenomenon, I guess. I don’t think that’s evidenced in our conversation. Bavigating is certainly not typically necessary in dungeons. Mapping is quite useful in both cases. Point being, there are many distinct exploration activities a character might engage in that would preclude keeping watch for danger (and thereby making a passive perception check), so it is indeed a choice. I would disagree that such a ruling is consistent with either the letter or intent of the rules, but I would accept the ruling because that’s the DM’s call to make, not mine. If I often found myself disagreeing with the DM’s rulings I might bring it up at a later time, and/or decide not to continue playing in their game. A secret door is not a threat, so I would not consider that the same activity as Noticing Threats, but yes, looking for ambushes and traps are both covered under the same activity, which I misremembered as being called “keeping watch for danger.” Looking for secret doors is not specifically listed as a travel activity, but it is given specifically as an example of an action that one could use a passive check to resolve performing repeatedly. The clue is the information. The possibility that they may misinterpret the information does not mean that the decisions they make were not informed decisions. An approach can certainly prevent intent from being achievable. If my intent is to tie my shoes and my approach is to yell at the laces to move, my approach has no chance of succeeding at achieving my goal. But both things would be necessary information for someone to determine if my overall action could succeed or fail. There are many ways one might move across a room without shoving people. If you felt the action declaration was not specific enough, you should have asked for further clarification. But what you did instead was established a more specific approach that the player did not specify, which again, is exactly what my method of action resolution is designed to prevent from happening. My understanding was that the trap is triggered by standing in the center of the room. How slowly you walk to the center of the room will have no effect on whether or not the trap that triggered by standing in the center of the room will be triggered when you stand in the center of the room. What they are able to see was already established in the initial description. If they wanted to change what they could see, they would need to have interacted with the environment in some way. What could the player possibly have said differently about how they moved to the center of the room that would not have resulted in the trap that triggers when someone stands in the center of the room from triggering once they got to the center of the room? That’s just factually untrue. The specifics of the approach are necessary to determine if it can succeed in achieving the goal, or if it can fail to do so. Probably, though I’ve lost track of the example scenario you’re talking about here. So, by them not completing the action they declared? I don’t know what this means. What a strange thing to say. It does neither. It often results in automatic success. Sometimes, it results in needing to make a roll of some sort to succeed. And occasionally, it results in failure, though fairly rarely, and more often than not, inconsequentially. I haven’t claimed otherwise. You ignored the part where I said “when they encountered conflict.” My intent did matter, the issue was my approach not mattering. 🤣🤣🤣 no. This DM was not one for telegraphing. Yes, and I accepted that ruling. I accepted a lot of rulings he made that I disagreed with. Occasionally, we discussed those disagreements outside of game time. Eventually, I decided the game was not for me and left. It was one example that I mentioned, because it was relevant to the discussion. There were many more examples of rulings I thought were poor ones in that campaign. That one wasn’t even particularly egregious, just kind of annoying. I could give you some worse ones if you want. Ultimately though, nah, not a big deal. I decided that group wasn’t a good fit for me and moved on. I think the campaign is actually still going, and I’m sure the folks who stayed did so because they enjoyed it. Different strokes. Literally because I rolled low, I said it would have made no difference had I been playing Candy Crush instead, which is true. I happen to know that other players in that campaign regularly goofed off in other tabs. It bothered me quite a bit that actually engaging in the game was treated no differently than tabbing out until the DM shut up and then pushing one of the “make something else happen” buttons on the character sheet. It did not make for a believable world, because the world didn’t really respond to player inputs, it just did whatever the octopus in the DM’s brain decided the random numbers meant would happen next. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
Top