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="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8729874" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Fine, my argument is weaker because I made a single example that cannot cover every single possibility in the game. Next time I'll be more specific and account for every single possible build.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, you aren't. Because the argument is "I shouldn't assume more than necessary for the example" and "I shouldn't change the example after establishing it" and your "rebuttal" is, "you should include feats because it is possible to assume feats might apply". That isn't a rebuttal, because there is nothing in it to challenge either of the two arguments.</p><p></p><p>If you instead think that your rebuttal is to the example itself, I already acknowledged that adding feats would make it easier for the Fighter and the Bard. But the example didn't include feats and I wasn't going to change it to start adding in the possibility of every feat in the game needing to be accounted for (because it would need to be every feat, not just the perception feats, because what if they took Chef instead?)</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Switching gears mid-conversation isn't something I'm good at.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are off-base with the argument. No, I don't use lifestyle expenses, or track basically any equipment. I don't have people buying magical items either. But none of that is the point, it is just a consequence of the choices we've made to begin with.</p><p></p><p>The point of money is to buy things. Even in the real-world, money itself is pretty worthless. No one wants a million dollars if the only thing you can do is set it on a table and watch it mold over the decades. Every post-apocalypse story starts off the same way, by acknowledging that money is worthless, it is just a medium of exchange. And, as such, very very few people make characters who have money as a goal. They may need money to achieve a goal, but money itself is never the goal.</p><p></p><p>And most of the people who sit at my tables, they rarely realize that I almost never give out coin or gems as treasure. Because they don't care about it, especially after they've gotten the mundane equipment they want. They have other goals, other concerns, and none of them involve money. They are here for a heroic story of their characters accomplishing their goals, they don't really care if the chest has 2,000 gold in it, because they don't care about the gold. It is useful, but it isn't worthwhile. And sure, I could force it to be necessary, I could force them to need to spend 10's of gold to simply exist in the gameworld and keep playing, make them desperate to have enough coin to buy the supplies they need... but everyone is very tired of the corporate rat race as it is, we don't want that in our game.</p><p></p><p>So, we get things through barter and trade, we find things that they need or want, and money just slowly slides from our consciousness until someone remembers we are playing DnD and supposed to care about money and asks for some, and I toss a few hundred extra gold or some treasure to hawk in the next section of the adventure. Or they find a task that requires them to have money, and that money becomes a good way to track progress on that task.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but I'm only human. Get enough NPCs floating around, and becomes really hard to put any level of care into all of them. And these aren't people anyone cared about before they put out the wanted ad, they literally just want eyes and combat ability, and the rest is window dressing.</p><p></p><p>I'd much rather have NPCs join the group organically than because the rules demanded it.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe, but I've played in games where we end up searching like that, and it never once felt more interesting than doing chores. Not saying it isn't possible that you can make it interesting and exciting, but after a decade it is still the case that people are most engaged with figuring out what to do after they have the thing, than trying to tear apart the room to find it in the first place.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>By being in a well-designed secret room. Small sounds are far harder to hear through stone and wood, but a peephole is still incredibly useful for things like seeing what's in the other side of the wall.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, such as assuming I don't look at the ground when looking for traps. Because I didn't specify and thus I should have said. Which is only one step removed from having to say "I grab my weapon and armor when I leave the inn", so the DM doesn't declare a week down the road that I left my gear behind because they "didn't want to assume"</p><p></p><p>And I know that sounds hyperbolic, but in one of my first full campaigns ever? We were playing Darksun and were given a task by the Sorcerer-King to investigate something in the deep desert. We were part of his government, more or less, level 13 or so, and we immediately agreed and said we headed out. DM said that after about a week of travel our water and rations ran out, we asked why, because we clearly would have brought enough for the mission. He informed us that we said we "left immediately" which meant we had not purchased any supplies for the journey, only the stuff we'd had on us. We pointed out that would have been suicide and we would never have done that. He shrugged, but did relent and allowed my character to use the ritual for create food and water (this was 4e by the way) with just money and no supplies, to make sure we didn't die from dehydration as we hurried back to the city.</p><p></p><p>He then had the Sorcerer-King pissed at our incompetence because we had done what he had said and "left immediately" to our near deaths, because it turns out growing up on Athas and being high-level adventurers wasn't enough to assume that we would buy supplies to actually survive a trip into the desert. He probably thought not assuming was the proper thing to do, but to me? It just showed that we couldn't ever make any assumptions ourselves. Had to state everything in the clearest terms possible, or we'd go for a month long desert trek with 7 days worth of water.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>All the information it conveys is that my character isn't an idiot. Since I suspect traps, I don't go running forward, I move slowly. This is just... beyond basic. And I'm looking at the floor, because again, where else would I look? "I don't want to assume" isn't a real stance, because all you end up doing is assuming the character in question is too stupid to do something in a logical way.</p><p></p><p>Now maybe you are right that to do this well requires a degree of information that is just impossible to put into a forum post. However, if you can at least acknowlege that with little information we end up pixel-hunting and magic-wording, then you can understand that when we have little information to go on... that's what we assume the players have as well. You can say "well, I'd do it better in person" but that doesn't mean anything. Everyone says that. No one thinks their style isn't working as best it can. We picture ideals when we imagine ourselves doing something.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Let us say that you compare the goal to the approach, and you come to the realization that is has no possible chance for success. We are in the moments before you ask the player anything, and I want to pause. Do you imagine the player purposefully chose an approach with no possible chance for success? Or do you imagine the player proposed their approach because they thought it gave them the best possible chance for success? Ignoring for a moment those players who chose to fail because it is funny or in character.</p><p></p><p>Obviously they think it will succeed. Now, I may ask for clarification because I need more information to narrate. Or I may be really curious how they think "that" could work. But the hardest thing? The hardest thing is realizing that I am working with "perfect information" and they aren't. Trying to picture what they are, with the lack of information I have, is very difficult. But when I can, then it suddenly becomes much clearer what they were thinking when they proposed that path of action.</p><p></p><p>With the goal, I usually have enough, because I know how difficult the goal should be to accomplish for someone who is working with all the information I have, and I assume the players are making the best decisions possible.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I cracked a smile</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>But it doesn't have to be meta-game terms. I can describe the scorched skeletons, the diagonal lines of the burn marks on the stone, and finish with "the conclusion is inevitable. There is a trap that spits fire up ahead." None of that uses "meta-game" terms, that's all information that is rooted in the fiction they are being presented with. It just takes that last step.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You've said this a few times, but why would anyone set up the same trap in the same manner, multiple times? That just seems like asking people to bypass it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 8729874, member: 6801228"] Fine, my argument is weaker because I made a single example that cannot cover every single possibility in the game. Next time I'll be more specific and account for every single possible build. No, you aren't. Because the argument is "I shouldn't assume more than necessary for the example" and "I shouldn't change the example after establishing it" and your "rebuttal" is, "you should include feats because it is possible to assume feats might apply". That isn't a rebuttal, because there is nothing in it to challenge either of the two arguments. If you instead think that your rebuttal is to the example itself, I already acknowledged that adding feats would make it easier for the Fighter and the Bard. But the example didn't include feats and I wasn't going to change it to start adding in the possibility of every feat in the game needing to be accounted for (because it would need to be every feat, not just the perception feats, because what if they took Chef instead?) Switching gears mid-conversation isn't something I'm good at. You are off-base with the argument. No, I don't use lifestyle expenses, or track basically any equipment. I don't have people buying magical items either. But none of that is the point, it is just a consequence of the choices we've made to begin with. The point of money is to buy things. Even in the real-world, money itself is pretty worthless. No one wants a million dollars if the only thing you can do is set it on a table and watch it mold over the decades. Every post-apocalypse story starts off the same way, by acknowledging that money is worthless, it is just a medium of exchange. And, as such, very very few people make characters who have money as a goal. They may need money to achieve a goal, but money itself is never the goal. And most of the people who sit at my tables, they rarely realize that I almost never give out coin or gems as treasure. Because they don't care about it, especially after they've gotten the mundane equipment they want. They have other goals, other concerns, and none of them involve money. They are here for a heroic story of their characters accomplishing their goals, they don't really care if the chest has 2,000 gold in it, because they don't care about the gold. It is useful, but it isn't worthwhile. And sure, I could force it to be necessary, I could force them to need to spend 10's of gold to simply exist in the gameworld and keep playing, make them desperate to have enough coin to buy the supplies they need... but everyone is very tired of the corporate rat race as it is, we don't want that in our game. So, we get things through barter and trade, we find things that they need or want, and money just slowly slides from our consciousness until someone remembers we are playing DnD and supposed to care about money and asks for some, and I toss a few hundred extra gold or some treasure to hawk in the next section of the adventure. Or they find a task that requires them to have money, and that money becomes a good way to track progress on that task. Sure, but I'm only human. Get enough NPCs floating around, and becomes really hard to put any level of care into all of them. And these aren't people anyone cared about before they put out the wanted ad, they literally just want eyes and combat ability, and the rest is window dressing. I'd much rather have NPCs join the group organically than because the rules demanded it. Maybe, but I've played in games where we end up searching like that, and it never once felt more interesting than doing chores. Not saying it isn't possible that you can make it interesting and exciting, but after a decade it is still the case that people are most engaged with figuring out what to do after they have the thing, than trying to tear apart the room to find it in the first place. By being in a well-designed secret room. Small sounds are far harder to hear through stone and wood, but a peephole is still incredibly useful for things like seeing what's in the other side of the wall. Yes, such as assuming I don't look at the ground when looking for traps. Because I didn't specify and thus I should have said. Which is only one step removed from having to say "I grab my weapon and armor when I leave the inn", so the DM doesn't declare a week down the road that I left my gear behind because they "didn't want to assume" And I know that sounds hyperbolic, but in one of my first full campaigns ever? We were playing Darksun and were given a task by the Sorcerer-King to investigate something in the deep desert. We were part of his government, more or less, level 13 or so, and we immediately agreed and said we headed out. DM said that after about a week of travel our water and rations ran out, we asked why, because we clearly would have brought enough for the mission. He informed us that we said we "left immediately" which meant we had not purchased any supplies for the journey, only the stuff we'd had on us. We pointed out that would have been suicide and we would never have done that. He shrugged, but did relent and allowed my character to use the ritual for create food and water (this was 4e by the way) with just money and no supplies, to make sure we didn't die from dehydration as we hurried back to the city. He then had the Sorcerer-King pissed at our incompetence because we had done what he had said and "left immediately" to our near deaths, because it turns out growing up on Athas and being high-level adventurers wasn't enough to assume that we would buy supplies to actually survive a trip into the desert. He probably thought not assuming was the proper thing to do, but to me? It just showed that we couldn't ever make any assumptions ourselves. Had to state everything in the clearest terms possible, or we'd go for a month long desert trek with 7 days worth of water. All the information it conveys is that my character isn't an idiot. Since I suspect traps, I don't go running forward, I move slowly. This is just... beyond basic. And I'm looking at the floor, because again, where else would I look? "I don't want to assume" isn't a real stance, because all you end up doing is assuming the character in question is too stupid to do something in a logical way. Now maybe you are right that to do this well requires a degree of information that is just impossible to put into a forum post. However, if you can at least acknowlege that with little information we end up pixel-hunting and magic-wording, then you can understand that when we have little information to go on... that's what we assume the players have as well. You can say "well, I'd do it better in person" but that doesn't mean anything. Everyone says that. No one thinks their style isn't working as best it can. We picture ideals when we imagine ourselves doing something. Let us say that you compare the goal to the approach, and you come to the realization that is has no possible chance for success. We are in the moments before you ask the player anything, and I want to pause. Do you imagine the player purposefully chose an approach with no possible chance for success? Or do you imagine the player proposed their approach because they thought it gave them the best possible chance for success? Ignoring for a moment those players who chose to fail because it is funny or in character. Obviously they think it will succeed. Now, I may ask for clarification because I need more information to narrate. Or I may be really curious how they think "that" could work. But the hardest thing? The hardest thing is realizing that I am working with "perfect information" and they aren't. Trying to picture what they are, with the lack of information I have, is very difficult. But when I can, then it suddenly becomes much clearer what they were thinking when they proposed that path of action. With the goal, I usually have enough, because I know how difficult the goal should be to accomplish for someone who is working with all the information I have, and I assume the players are making the best decisions possible. I cracked a smile But it doesn't have to be meta-game terms. I can describe the scorched skeletons, the diagonal lines of the burn marks on the stone, and finish with "the conclusion is inevitable. There is a trap that spits fire up ahead." None of that uses "meta-game" terms, that's all information that is rooted in the fiction they are being presented with. It just takes that last step. You've said this a few times, but why would anyone set up the same trap in the same manner, multiple times? That just seems like asking people to bypass it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"I make a perception check."
Top