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 coming! 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: 8729586" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Yes I am ignoring feats. I've explained why I am ignoring feats, but I will continue to repeat myself. </p><p></p><p>You do not get a feat before level 4. There is an exception if you are a V. Human or a Custom Lineage, but as I have repeatedly stated, I am not assuming a specific race. Could you be a V. Human? Yes. You could also be a Fairy. Your attempts to force me to assume everyone plays Variant humans will continued to be ignored. There is an exception if you have specific backgrounds from Strixhaven. I'm not assuming you are playing in Strixhaven. So I am not assuming you have those specific backgrounds. Maybe you have backgrounds like Soldier or Entertainer which do not grant feats. I will continue to ignore your attempts to force me to assume everyone uses a background which grants a feat. I'll even acknowledge some people homebrew and houserule to allow feats at first level for everyone. But I will not be assuming that everyone uses that houserule. You can try and continue to force me to assume everyone uses that houserule, but I will not be. </p><p></p><p>So, are we done trying to force feats into this scenario? Or am I going to have to repeat this on every post?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The original point of the example was that your DMing style ignored the potential to use bardic inspiration to help the situation, which you acknowledged you would have put a stop to when they first proposed their original plan. </p><p></p><p>The party comp itself was not a critique of your style. The fact you feel the need to bully me into changing it because you don't like it really is starting to annoy me though.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Wish we could have that conversation instead.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is a far cry between "you can't have everything" and "being able to safely traverse a space requires a minimum of 6 people" </p><p></p><p>And it isn't really a meaningful decision in my mind. They are going to pick to spend money, as long as they have a enough (which isn't always the case) because you can't spend money if you are dead, and DnD money is a fairly empty and worthless thing anyways. And of course they will spend it on people who can fight, leading to increasing threats, because they will have far more bodies on the field. </p><p></p><p>None of this is what the game is about. The game is about the stories, and the story of needing to hire faceless NPCs to make sure they have enough eyes to not be ambushed every time they go anywhere isn't a good story. We can do far better than "do you spend money on faceless merc #3 or do you risk getting lost for an hour in the dungeon" in terms of meaningful decisions.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You know what I have found, more and more often? No one cares about the search. No one is excited by the search. They are excited by finding the item. That's when they get excited and engaged. Similarly, no one is excited by assigning a marching order and declaring their actions. No one cares. They care when something happens. </p><p></p><p>Sure, you've created a resource scarcity to make moving safely between the interesting bits harder. I suppose that is a sort of challenge, but... can't we do better than that? If you want to make moving through the dungeon harder and more of a challenge, can't we do it without making it something that is solved by hiring more people to cover more actions?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>How could they? You wouldn't even check the monster's stealth against the player's passive perception, because they can't notice the door. I guess maybe you could have noises coming from inside the wall, but then you have still revealed the location of the secret door, which you said you would not do. </p><p></p><p>So how do you propose to alert the party to the prescence of monsters hiding behind a secret door, without revealing the secret door?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Seriously? You thought a person looking for traps in a room wouldn't look at the ground? Man, I guess my highly trained killer, used to dozens of delves into dangerous places has encountered so many floating mid-air traps that they just stare straight ahead just in case. Maybe they closed their eyes before moving? </p><p></p><p>I know I'm being sarcastic and a bit rude, but seriously, where else would they look for traps if not the ground?! 90% of all traps are either on or triggered by the ground. This is the type of thing we talk about when we talk about assuming the PCs are professionals who know what they are doing. We assume when someone is looking for traps, they look where traps will be. This seriously blows my mind. "Looking for traps" isn't good enough, that's like shouting at you shoelaces to tie themselves, but "looking at the ground for traps" is perfectly intelligible and acceptable. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because then all the interesting parts of the game are bogged down by the minutia of protecting themselves. It becomes and endless parade of hyper-specific intstructions with the singular goal of preventing any possible unforeseen circumstances. </p><p></p><p>They pull out the plate gauntlet before opening anything, make sure to have a wet-rag wrapped around their face for spores and poison gases, probably try to get a full-on gas mask, then they make sure to never touch anything directly, while never standing in front of anything in case it fires out further than a foot. It goes on and on and on and on. And none of it is interesting. It is just tedium, and it can all be trivially prevented by just assuming that the PCs are professionals.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Telegraphing is a fine line to toe though, because if you telegraph to the point people notice it, then how much difference is there between just telling them in the first place? </p><p></p><p>Honestly, I have strongly considered just telling players when they could a trap exactly what and where it is. Because if there is an interesting challenge, it would be in safely disarming the trap. Unfortunately, most traps are trivial to disarm if you are aware of them, which is why most trap design discussions are difficult to even have. Because any trap that is trivial to beat if you see it isn't actually well-designed, but a well-designed trap is HARD to figure out.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Their goal is whatever their goal is. It would be context specific and it truly doesn't matter what the goal is. The player thinks that playing a sad song on their viol is enough to achieve their goal, and if I don't understand what they are going for in the attempt, I would ask "okay, what are you hoping to accomplish?" </p><p></p><p>But the larger point is, must like "search the room" could have dozens of specific variations of action, so can "play a sad song". In fact, it could have even more, since I could ask which culture the song is from, dwarven? elvish? gnomish? That might make a difference, right? Except... no one ever asks that. No one wants the same level of detail they want for searching a room for playing a sad song. Because playing a sad song can't trigger a trap. There is no way that the player could say they play that song that leads to them automatically failing and triggering something bad. So no one bothers to ask.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8729586, member: 6801228"] Yes I am ignoring feats. I've explained why I am ignoring feats, but I will continue to repeat myself. You do not get a feat before level 4. There is an exception if you are a V. Human or a Custom Lineage, but as I have repeatedly stated, I am not assuming a specific race. Could you be a V. Human? Yes. You could also be a Fairy. Your attempts to force me to assume everyone plays Variant humans will continued to be ignored. There is an exception if you have specific backgrounds from Strixhaven. I'm not assuming you are playing in Strixhaven. So I am not assuming you have those specific backgrounds. Maybe you have backgrounds like Soldier or Entertainer which do not grant feats. I will continue to ignore your attempts to force me to assume everyone uses a background which grants a feat. I'll even acknowledge some people homebrew and houserule to allow feats at first level for everyone. But I will not be assuming that everyone uses that houserule. You can try and continue to force me to assume everyone uses that houserule, but I will not be. So, are we done trying to force feats into this scenario? Or am I going to have to repeat this on every post? The original point of the example was that your DMing style ignored the potential to use bardic inspiration to help the situation, which you acknowledged you would have put a stop to when they first proposed their original plan. The party comp itself was not a critique of your style. The fact you feel the need to bully me into changing it because you don't like it really is starting to annoy me though. Wish we could have that conversation instead. There is a far cry between "you can't have everything" and "being able to safely traverse a space requires a minimum of 6 people" And it isn't really a meaningful decision in my mind. They are going to pick to spend money, as long as they have a enough (which isn't always the case) because you can't spend money if you are dead, and DnD money is a fairly empty and worthless thing anyways. And of course they will spend it on people who can fight, leading to increasing threats, because they will have far more bodies on the field. None of this is what the game is about. The game is about the stories, and the story of needing to hire faceless NPCs to make sure they have enough eyes to not be ambushed every time they go anywhere isn't a good story. We can do far better than "do you spend money on faceless merc #3 or do you risk getting lost for an hour in the dungeon" in terms of meaningful decisions. You know what I have found, more and more often? No one cares about the search. No one is excited by the search. They are excited by finding the item. That's when they get excited and engaged. Similarly, no one is excited by assigning a marching order and declaring their actions. No one cares. They care when something happens. Sure, you've created a resource scarcity to make moving safely between the interesting bits harder. I suppose that is a sort of challenge, but... can't we do better than that? If you want to make moving through the dungeon harder and more of a challenge, can't we do it without making it something that is solved by hiring more people to cover more actions? How could they? You wouldn't even check the monster's stealth against the player's passive perception, because they can't notice the door. I guess maybe you could have noises coming from inside the wall, but then you have still revealed the location of the secret door, which you said you would not do. So how do you propose to alert the party to the prescence of monsters hiding behind a secret door, without revealing the secret door? Seriously? You thought a person looking for traps in a room wouldn't look at the ground? Man, I guess my highly trained killer, used to dozens of delves into dangerous places has encountered so many floating mid-air traps that they just stare straight ahead just in case. Maybe they closed their eyes before moving? I know I'm being sarcastic and a bit rude, but seriously, where else would they look for traps if not the ground?! 90% of all traps are either on or triggered by the ground. This is the type of thing we talk about when we talk about assuming the PCs are professionals who know what they are doing. We assume when someone is looking for traps, they look where traps will be. This seriously blows my mind. "Looking for traps" isn't good enough, that's like shouting at you shoelaces to tie themselves, but "looking at the ground for traps" is perfectly intelligible and acceptable. Because then all the interesting parts of the game are bogged down by the minutia of protecting themselves. It becomes and endless parade of hyper-specific intstructions with the singular goal of preventing any possible unforeseen circumstances. They pull out the plate gauntlet before opening anything, make sure to have a wet-rag wrapped around their face for spores and poison gases, probably try to get a full-on gas mask, then they make sure to never touch anything directly, while never standing in front of anything in case it fires out further than a foot. It goes on and on and on and on. And none of it is interesting. It is just tedium, and it can all be trivially prevented by just assuming that the PCs are professionals. Telegraphing is a fine line to toe though, because if you telegraph to the point people notice it, then how much difference is there between just telling them in the first place? Honestly, I have strongly considered just telling players when they could a trap exactly what and where it is. Because if there is an interesting challenge, it would be in safely disarming the trap. Unfortunately, most traps are trivial to disarm if you are aware of them, which is why most trap design discussions are difficult to even have. Because any trap that is trivial to beat if you see it isn't actually well-designed, but a well-designed trap is HARD to figure out. Their goal is whatever their goal is. It would be context specific and it truly doesn't matter what the goal is. The player thinks that playing a sad song on their viol is enough to achieve their goal, and if I don't understand what they are going for in the attempt, I would ask "okay, what are you hoping to accomplish?" But the larger point is, must like "search the room" could have dozens of specific variations of action, so can "play a sad song". In fact, it could have even more, since I could ask which culture the song is from, dwarven? elvish? gnomish? That might make a difference, right? Except... no one ever asks that. No one wants the same level of detail they want for searching a room for playing a sad song. Because playing a sad song can't trigger a trap. There is no way that the player could say they play that song that leads to them automatically failing and triggering something bad. So no one bothers to ask. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
Top