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
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!
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: 8728847" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>Sure, maybe it was a two person campaign and neither of the players decided to invest much in Perception. A small party not having the tools they need to excel in a particular situation is a normal thing that happens in D&D gameplay.</p><p></p><p>None of those things were initially specified in the example. Regardless, my point was that it’s not impossible or even particularly unlikely for the party to have access to a better passive Perception than 14. That this particular hypothetical group doesn’t is not a problem with my DMing style.</p><p></p><p>I don’t see how that would even meaningfully affect the argument. I mean I guess the cloak of invisibility would narrow the range of possible approaches that could lead to finding the goblin?</p><p></p><p>I don’t understand how you can see that the players have multiple, mutually exclusive options, and claim that picking between them isn’t a choice.</p><p></p><p>I don’t consider my ideas impossible to challenge or critique, I’m just not here to present them for critique. And it certainly seems like you’re trying to argue that my technique only serves to trap players into unsinkable gotcha scenarios, which I think definitely qualifies as an accusation of badwrongfun.</p><p></p><p>I did acknowledge several posts back that it would probably make more sense to lump looking for traps in with looking for secret doors rather than keeping watch for monsters.</p><p></p><p>They are entirely different things.</p><p></p><p>The characters who are keeping watch for danger can avoid being surprised by monsters that ambush them from behind secret doors. I don’t know how one would possibly counter-ambush a group of enemies that is hidden behind a secret door without finding the secret door first, regardless of whether you lump looking for it in with keeping watch for monsters.</p><p></p><p>I thought I was pretty clear that the specific thing I wanted you to describe was your method of looking for traps, yes. If that’s your goal, I need to know your approach to that goal, to a reasonable degree of specificity.</p><p></p><p>Funny, you seemed to come up with the10-foot poll method and the mage-hand method easily enough. I have also been quite explicit that I understand you are not a trapsmith; I am also not a trapsmith. I will keep both of our lack of specialized knowledge in mind and do my best to interpret your action declarations generously in light of that fact.</p><p></p><p>If for some reason you want to roll, I recommend describing something that you think could succeed but could also fail, and would have consequences if it failed.</p><p></p><p>That’s an incorrect assumption. Maybe you have played with lots of DMs who acti fly try to thwart whatever actions the players attempt, but I am not one of them, and you treating this discussion as if it was with one of them is not helping us come to a mutual understanding, which you claim to be your goal.</p><p></p><p>My approach absolutely can have problems and pitfalls, which I have acknowledged plenty, including in this thread if I recall correctly. A lot of “killer DMs” are DMs who have fallen into pitfalls related to this technique. One of the reasons I share my approach is to help other DMs who employ or may be curious about employing a similar style, might avoid such pitfalls.</p><p></p><p>And my point in this thread has been to explain what I do that has been successful in avoiding the problem the OP is ranting about. If you go back, you may notice that I came in simply saying that what I do is state what I understood from the player’s declaration, and what information I still need them to clarify. This has been incredibly successful for me at getting players to engage with this style of game: like I said, players at my table who may have been hesitant at first have consistently found they enjoyed it once they saw it in action. Since then though, I have been met with nothing but specific example scenarios contrived to try and prove that I’m secretly just an adversarial DM trying to make excuses to ignore players’ intents and spring traps on them without giving them a chance to avoid it.</p><p></p><p>Is it not true that it isn’t that hard, or that your aversion to failure without a roll is why you would rather just make a check, or that you have had negative experiences with other DMs that have made you hesitant about this style of play? It is certainly true that such gotchas wouldn’t happen at my table.</p><p></p><p>Because I haven’t found that to be the case.</p><p></p><p>Well if you want to try to reach a real understanding, I recommend starting by dropping assumptions of what I will do based on what you have seen other DMs do. Give me enough benefit of the doubt to believe me when I say these problems don’t come up in my games, and that even players who have been hesitant about the style have enjoyed it when they play at my table, and ask questions with the intent of understanding what I may be doing differently than those other DMs you’ve played with instead of trying to prove that I’m secretly doing exactly the same thing they did.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8728847, member: 6779196"] Sure, maybe it was a two person campaign and neither of the players decided to invest much in Perception. A small party not having the tools they need to excel in a particular situation is a normal thing that happens in D&D gameplay. None of those things were initially specified in the example. Regardless, my point was that it’s not impossible or even particularly unlikely for the party to have access to a better passive Perception than 14. That this particular hypothetical group doesn’t is not a problem with my DMing style. I don’t see how that would even meaningfully affect the argument. I mean I guess the cloak of invisibility would narrow the range of possible approaches that could lead to finding the goblin? I don’t understand how you can see that the players have multiple, mutually exclusive options, and claim that picking between them isn’t a choice. I don’t consider my ideas impossible to challenge or critique, I’m just not here to present them for critique. And it certainly seems like you’re trying to argue that my technique only serves to trap players into unsinkable gotcha scenarios, which I think definitely qualifies as an accusation of badwrongfun. I did acknowledge several posts back that it would probably make more sense to lump looking for traps in with looking for secret doors rather than keeping watch for monsters. They are entirely different things. The characters who are keeping watch for danger can avoid being surprised by monsters that ambush them from behind secret doors. I don’t know how one would possibly counter-ambush a group of enemies that is hidden behind a secret door without finding the secret door first, regardless of whether you lump looking for it in with keeping watch for monsters. I thought I was pretty clear that the specific thing I wanted you to describe was your method of looking for traps, yes. If that’s your goal, I need to know your approach to that goal, to a reasonable degree of specificity. Funny, you seemed to come up with the10-foot poll method and the mage-hand method easily enough. I have also been quite explicit that I understand you are not a trapsmith; I am also not a trapsmith. I will keep both of our lack of specialized knowledge in mind and do my best to interpret your action declarations generously in light of that fact. If for some reason you want to roll, I recommend describing something that you think could succeed but could also fail, and would have consequences if it failed. That’s an incorrect assumption. Maybe you have played with lots of DMs who acti fly try to thwart whatever actions the players attempt, but I am not one of them, and you treating this discussion as if it was with one of them is not helping us come to a mutual understanding, which you claim to be your goal. My approach absolutely can have problems and pitfalls, which I have acknowledged plenty, including in this thread if I recall correctly. A lot of “killer DMs” are DMs who have fallen into pitfalls related to this technique. One of the reasons I share my approach is to help other DMs who employ or may be curious about employing a similar style, might avoid such pitfalls. And my point in this thread has been to explain what I do that has been successful in avoiding the problem the OP is ranting about. If you go back, you may notice that I came in simply saying that what I do is state what I understood from the player’s declaration, and what information I still need them to clarify. This has been incredibly successful for me at getting players to engage with this style of game: like I said, players at my table who may have been hesitant at first have consistently found they enjoyed it once they saw it in action. Since then though, I have been met with nothing but specific example scenarios contrived to try and prove that I’m secretly just an adversarial DM trying to make excuses to ignore players’ intents and spring traps on them without giving them a chance to avoid it. Is it not true that it isn’t that hard, or that your aversion to failure without a roll is why you would rather just make a check, or that you have had negative experiences with other DMs that have made you hesitant about this style of play? It is certainly true that such gotchas wouldn’t happen at my table. Because I haven’t found that to be the case. Well if you want to try to reach a real understanding, I recommend starting by dropping assumptions of what I will do based on what you have seen other DMs do. Give me enough benefit of the doubt to believe me when I say these problems don’t come up in my games, and that even players who have been hesitant about the style have enjoyed it when they play at my table, and ask questions with the intent of understanding what I may be doing differently than those other DMs you’ve played with instead of trying to prove that I’m secretly doing exactly the same thing they did. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
Top