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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8727491" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I definitely think the fighter’s sword is important, but ok.Why do the PCs likely only have a 14 passive perception? No one a Wis-based caster in the party? Nobody has expertise? Nobody took the Observant feat? Nobody above 4th level? Besides that, a goblin has +6 stealth. That’s an average roll of 16, so if the PCs only have +4 to perception among them at most, they only have a 45% chance of succeeding if they roll.I thought they made this plan when the goblin ran away? They didn’t know if they would succeed or fail the passive check at that time.Typically while exploring a dungeon, one person should be making a map, at least one person should be trying to notice threats, or better yet one person doing so in the front rank and one person doing so in the back rank, and it’s probably a good idea for at least one person looking for secret doors (which I do consider a separate activity, and said so). That’s 4 characters occupied. At minimum, it is a choice who to designate for which role, since characters likely have different stats and will be better or worse suited to other roles. This is also assuming no one scouts ahead of the group, or elects to work together with someone else on their task to grant them advantage (+5, since we’re talking about passive checks) instead of engaging in a different activity themselves.I can disagree with the DM’s call and still accept that it is their call to make, and live by the results. I may discuss my disagreement with them outside of the game, in hopes of convincing them to rule differently in the future, but even then I accept it is ultimately their decision. If I find this happens frequently, I may decide that I am not a good fit for the group and leave. It’s not often that I have felt the needto do this, but it has happened.No, I don’t agree with that. But if that was how you ruled when I was playing in your game, I would live with it, especially cause it would be all upside for me as a player anyway.That’s silly. A secret door is not a hazard, looking for hazards will not reveal a secret door. If enemies try to ambush you from a secret door, those enemies are a hazard, which a character looking for hazards may be able to notice. The secret door will also then be open, so it would no longer be very secret.It literally doesn’t, but whatever.Yes, because it’s supposed an example of an approach that can’t succeed at achieving the goal. Being unable to work is the point of the example.Woah, hang on. Walking carefully forward while looking at the ground is an entirely different approach than walking to the center of the room. If that was what you were picturing the characters doing to try and find the trap, why didn’t you say so? This would have been a very different conversation.Correct, the manner in which you travel from point A to point B has no impact on whether or not a trap that is triggered when someone stands in point B will be triggered when you complete that traversal.Well sorry I didn’t read the hypothetical players’ minds and figure out that by “walk to the center of the room” they meant “walk carefully forward while looking at the ground.” For someone who’s so concerned with insuring the players don’t have to guess what the DM is thinking, you sure seem to be fine with making the DM guess what the players are thinking.I played with this DM for several months, I got to be quite familiar with their DMing techniques. You may think I’m exaggerating when I say players could just goof off in another tab and press a skill button on the character sheet when the DM stopped talking, but I’m not. I know from conversations with the other players that some of them were literally doing that, and I know from firsthand experience that simply clicking a skill button on the character sheet without saying a word was a perfectly accepted way of engaging with the game. The DM did not care about any description we gave of our actions, only the number on the roll mattered.I absolutely accepted the rulings; what he said happened was what happened, I never tried to get a ruling changed after the fact (well… actually once I did, and I regret that decision). On a few occasions I had conversations with him about why I thought his rulings were not consistent with the rules and were producing bad outcomes (like players checking out because we felt our level of engagement was irrelevant). Nothing changed, so I left the game. Simple.I’m perfectly fine with discussing why we rule the way we do. But when we get down to the point of “I don’t like the way you rule,” I no longer think the discussion is productive. I can explain to you how I arrive at my interpretation of the rules, and why I think ruling accordingly leads to positive play outcomes, and answer any questions you might have about my process or reasoning. But I have no interest in litigating who’s interpretation of the rules is “right” and I really don’t care if you like the way I rule or not.Yes, when a roll is necessary. Also, often the context leading up to a roll being called for informs the possible results of the roll. Not the case in this DM’s game though.Because it literally got to the point where the players were contributing no description whatsoever. The DM monologued for a bit, someone pushed a button and a number popped up on the screen, the DM monologued some more. Do I think that was bad DMing? Yes. Is “the octopus in his brain” a colorful way to express that? Yes. Did I ever protest a ruling in the moment? …well, one time, yes, and I’m rather embarrassed I did so. It was unproductive and not the appropriate time or place, but by that point my frustration with the game had built up to the point that I couldn’t contain it any more, and that was the point where it became clear to me I couldn’t keep playing in that game. But I was in the wrong for doing so. That was the DM’s call to make, and arguing about it only served to interrupt the flow of the game and make everyone uncomfortable. The appropriate thing to do would have been to accept the ruling and either discuss my disagreement later, leave the group, or both.It was a bad approach for me. Evidently some of the other players (though not all, some others also ended up leaving) didn’t have a problem with it. I may not share those players’ preferences, but I don’t think those preferences are bad or wrong. If they were having fun, I’m glad for them. I removed myself because it was clear I wasn’t the right fit for the group.</blockquote>

Verification