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
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: 8729628" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>I’m not claiming everyone does it. However, anyone can do it. You are refusing to acknowledge it as an option because it being an option makes your argument weaker.</p><p></p><p>We can be done with it if you want, sure.</p><p></p><p><em>Bully you</em>? Seriously? That’s what you think is going on here? My friend, I’m just rebutting your arguments.</p><p></p><p>I mean, we could.</p><p></p><p>It’s certainly worthless if you ignore all the things players might need to spend it on. Do your players ever have to pay lifestyle expenses? Do you track light sources, rations, ammunition, expensive spellcasting components? Can they buy magical items? This is one of those things, like choosing travel tasks, that a lot of DMs ignore because they don’t see the immediate utility of, and then complain that there’s no use for money, or that the game has no exploration mechanics. These things are part of an interconnected system, and I have found that when you actually utilize all parts of the system, they work together harmoniously to create fun, challenging gameplay that generates emergent stories. </p><p></p><p>If they can afford to, probably; it’s a pretty efficient strategy.</p><p></p><p>I mean, yeah, if the help they hire is faceless merc #3, that wouldn’t make for a very good story. Part of the DM’s job is to make NPC hirelings more than faceless mercs.</p><p></p><p>Unsurprisingly, when the search consists of saying “I search” and rolling a die to see if you found anything. That was also my experience, until I tried DMing a different way. And you know what <em>I’ve</em> found more and more often since then? When the search itself is engaging, people are excited by it too.</p><p></p><p>We can certainly do differently than that, and maybe for you it would be better. I happen to enjoy the resource management challenge. And I’ve found that even players who didn’t think they liked resource management challenge actually do when it’s executed well.</p><p></p><p>If the players can’t perceive the monsters through the secret door, how on earth are the monsters supposed to perceive the players through it?</p><p></p><p>If that’s where you think 90% of traps are going to be found, then it should be pretty easy for you to come up with a reasonably specific description of how you search for them.</p><p></p><p>I thought I had made myself pretty clear that I want to avoid making any assumptions at all about the players’ actions.</p><p></p><p>Looking for traps was your <em>goal</em>. Giving it as your approach too is redundant. “I look for traps by looking for traps.” That doesn’t convey any information about how you are looking for traps. “I look for traps by slowly walking forward looking at the floor” does convey information about how you’re looking for traps.</p><p></p><p>All of that is infinitely more interesting to me than “I check for traps” <em>clatter</em>. Now, I get it. If you don’t have enough information to make meaningful decisions, you end up going through laundry lists of pointless SOPs just trying to eliminate any conceivable danger, and yes, that gets boring. That’s why a key part of doing this style well is giving good information, both directly in your description of the environment, and indirectly through good level design. If this style done poorly is a pixel-hunting point-and-click adventure game, then this style done well is Portal.</p><p></p><p>Hey, look at that, something we agree on. Absolutely it’s more interesting when the players are aware of the trap, because then they have the ability to meaningfully interact with it. And if the trap isn’t interesting when the players know it’s there, it won’t be made <em>more</em> interesting if they don’t. So, I do tell the players the trap is there. I just convey that information diegetically (colloquially, I “telegraph” it), because I think it’s more immersive and interesting that way. Is it possible players might miss telegraphs sometimes? Yes, and I’m ok with that. But, in my philosophy it should <em>at least</em> be clear enough that in retrospect, the players can recognize the clue that they missed, and what they could have done differently had they recognized it. That’s key to making the outcomes feel like direct results of the players’ actions instead of random, unavoidable screwjobs. That’s the difference between a good trap and a gotcha.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Level design and tutorializing are powerful tools here. I like to use common themes and motifs in dungeons, so I can introduce a trap early on, in a very obvious, impossible to miss way, and then re-use the same type of trap throughout the dungeon in gradually subtler ways and/or in gradually more complex contexts. That way, the players can learn to recognize the patterns and apply what they’ve learned in more challenging situations to overcome those challenges by their own skills, which is an incredibly rewarding feeling.</p><p></p><p>But it <em>does</em> matter to me, because comparing the goal to the approach is an essential part of my action resolution process. I figure out whether or not to call for a roll by imagining the action and asking myself if it could result in bringing about the goal, if it could fail to do so, and if there would be a meaningful consequence for it failing to do so. I need both pieces of information to do that process.</p><p></p><p>Because none of that is relevant to the question of if the approach can succeed in the goal. At least not usually. I mean, I suppose if the goal is like… to woo the Dwarven ambassador with a song or something, maybe then the song being from Dwarven culture might be relevant. That’s why I need to know <em>both</em> the goal <em>and</em> the approach.</p><p></p><p>That’s what you think! Until I put a trap in the adventure that triggers when a hidden mechanism resonates with the right musical frequency! Muahahaha!!!!!!! </p><p></p><p>(I kid, of course. Trying to bring some levity to what has been an exhaustingly serous discussion.)</p><p></p><p>But there are ways a player might play a song that could fail in them achieving their goal, depending on what that goal is. In order to properly resolve an action, I need to know the goal and the approach, to a degree of specificity so that I can determine if the approach can succeed in achieving the goal, if it can fail to do so, and if there is any consequence for failing to do so.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8729628, member: 6779196"] I’m not claiming everyone does it. However, anyone can do it. You are refusing to acknowledge it as an option because it being an option makes your argument weaker. We can be done with it if you want, sure. [I]Bully you[/I]? Seriously? That’s what you think is going on here? My friend, I’m just rebutting your arguments. I mean, we could. It’s certainly worthless if you ignore all the things players might need to spend it on. Do your players ever have to pay lifestyle expenses? Do you track light sources, rations, ammunition, expensive spellcasting components? Can they buy magical items? This is one of those things, like choosing travel tasks, that a lot of DMs ignore because they don’t see the immediate utility of, and then complain that there’s no use for money, or that the game has no exploration mechanics. These things are part of an interconnected system, and I have found that when you actually utilize all parts of the system, they work together harmoniously to create fun, challenging gameplay that generates emergent stories. If they can afford to, probably; it’s a pretty efficient strategy. I mean, yeah, if the help they hire is faceless merc #3, that wouldn’t make for a very good story. Part of the DM’s job is to make NPC hirelings more than faceless mercs. Unsurprisingly, when the search consists of saying “I search” and rolling a die to see if you found anything. That was also my experience, until I tried DMing a different way. And you know what [I]I’ve[/I] found more and more often since then? When the search itself is engaging, people are excited by it too. We can certainly do differently than that, and maybe for you it would be better. I happen to enjoy the resource management challenge. And I’ve found that even players who didn’t think they liked resource management challenge actually do when it’s executed well. If the players can’t perceive the monsters through the secret door, how on earth are the monsters supposed to perceive the players through it? If that’s where you think 90% of traps are going to be found, then it should be pretty easy for you to come up with a reasonably specific description of how you search for them. I thought I had made myself pretty clear that I want to avoid making any assumptions at all about the players’ actions. Looking for traps was your [I]goal[/I]. Giving it as your approach too is redundant. “I look for traps by looking for traps.” That doesn’t convey any information about how you are looking for traps. “I look for traps by slowly walking forward looking at the floor” does convey information about how you’re looking for traps. All of that is infinitely more interesting to me than “I check for traps” [I]clatter[/I]. Now, I get it. If you don’t have enough information to make meaningful decisions, you end up going through laundry lists of pointless SOPs just trying to eliminate any conceivable danger, and yes, that gets boring. That’s why a key part of doing this style well is giving good information, both directly in your description of the environment, and indirectly through good level design. If this style done poorly is a pixel-hunting point-and-click adventure game, then this style done well is Portal. Hey, look at that, something we agree on. Absolutely it’s more interesting when the players are aware of the trap, because then they have the ability to meaningfully interact with it. And if the trap isn’t interesting when the players know it’s there, it won’t be made [I]more[/I] interesting if they don’t. So, I do tell the players the trap is there. I just convey that information diegetically (colloquially, I “telegraph” it), because I think it’s more immersive and interesting that way. Is it possible players might miss telegraphs sometimes? Yes, and I’m ok with that. But, in my philosophy it should [I]at least[/I] be clear enough that in retrospect, the players can recognize the clue that they missed, and what they could have done differently had they recognized it. That’s key to making the outcomes feel like direct results of the players’ actions instead of random, unavoidable screwjobs. That’s the difference between a good trap and a gotcha. Level design and tutorializing are powerful tools here. I like to use common themes and motifs in dungeons, so I can introduce a trap early on, in a very obvious, impossible to miss way, and then re-use the same type of trap throughout the dungeon in gradually subtler ways and/or in gradually more complex contexts. That way, the players can learn to recognize the patterns and apply what they’ve learned in more challenging situations to overcome those challenges by their own skills, which is an incredibly rewarding feeling. But it [I]does[/I] matter to me, because comparing the goal to the approach is an essential part of my action resolution process. I figure out whether or not to call for a roll by imagining the action and asking myself if it could result in bringing about the goal, if it could fail to do so, and if there would be a meaningful consequence for it failing to do so. I need both pieces of information to do that process. Because none of that is relevant to the question of if the approach can succeed in the goal. At least not usually. I mean, I suppose if the goal is like… to woo the Dwarven ambassador with a song or something, maybe then the song being from Dwarven culture might be relevant. That’s why I need to know [I]both[/I] the goal [I]and[/I] the approach. That’s what you think! Until I put a trap in the adventure that triggers when a hidden mechanism resonates with the right musical frequency! Muahahaha!!!!!!! (I kid, of course. Trying to bring some levity to what has been an exhaustingly serous discussion.) But there are ways a player might play a song that could fail in them achieving their goal, depending on what that goal is. In order to properly resolve an action, I need to know the goal and the approach, to a degree of specificity so that I can determine if the approach can succeed in achieving the goal, if it can fail to do so, and if there is any consequence for failing to do so. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
Top