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="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8730233" data-attributes="member: 6801228">My argument does not hinge on the 14. Because my argument was back on the idea of choosing to roll and using Bardic inspiration. You just took exception to my observation that setting an ambush would require multiple perception checks, and would be passive perception, which they already failed at. You didn't like me positing they were likely to fail passive perception checks against the goblin, and then we got into build discussions. Which, again, sure it is possible we are dealing with some scenario where feats are possible and it is possible that in that scenario where feats are possible the feats taken improve Passive Perception. It is also equally likely that none of that is true. In fact, it is more likely to be true, because there are more reasons to assume there are not feats (the position I took at the start of the example) than that there are feats (your position now), and even if we assume that feats are on the table, there are far more feats that wouldn't change the situation than feats that do change the situation.I understand that you run a resource management game, but then again, can they spend gold if they are dead? Probably not, so spending gold to prevent themselves from dying is a safe bet. And ambushes and traps are generally quite deadly, correct?It is all caused by, from my perspective, altering the rules to force more styles of passive perception than there are people to utilize it. It is a purely mechanical drive, not a narrative one.So they end up being loud and echoey? Or they have no way to observe the space outside of them, to prevent people from seeing you leave?Right, so until I declared it, I wasn't looking anywhere. I want you to really stop and think about this. You are telling me, in a game without facing and that allows for a 360 degree field of vision, that you could not assume I was looking at anything, because I did not declare it. This tells me, as a player, that the direction I am looking and the speed I am moving are now going to have to be part of this "reasonable specificity" you talked about, because that is the difference between triggering  a trap and getting a chance to spot it. When you talked before about only requiring "reasonably specific" declarations, was speed of movement and direction of their gaze included in that? I can't imagine it was, but can I now risk not declaring those facets when declaring my action? Probably not, that is the difference between auto-failure and a chance.Yeah, it was so obviously crazy the entire party just assumed we had done so. If you'd asked us we'd have looked at you like you grew a second head and said "No, obviously we gather enough supplies first." That's the point. There are some things that everyone just assumes happens, because no other choice makes any sense.If they want to provide more information, they are free to. If they don't provide more information, then I fill in the blanks. I don't take any role-playing away from them. But I also don't force them to provide every detail. If they say they search the desk, and I have them roll, because there is yellow mold in the desk drawer. I could just assume, since they didn't say they were being careful, that they weren't careful and opened the drawer, getting a face full of mold. Or, I could look at the die roll, see that they rolled high, and go with them having lightly tugged the drawer, before noticing the faint tendrils of mold around the edges. With the resistance and the mold in sight, they would know the drawer is full. I took away no role-playing. They still made all their decisions in character, fitting with what they know of the scene. But since they can't possibly know everything, because they are limited to my narration and not their own 5 senses, I give them the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.It isn't spoon feeding. Just like it isn't spoon feeding to say "you wake up in jail" instead of just describing the location and leaving you to arrive at the conclusion that being in a cell in a hallway full of cells, filled with drunks, is a jail. I'm not taking away your ability to role-play by stating obvious conclusions.I think it is the explained away verisimilitude that trips me up. I look for ways to make things more real, not to explain why they aren't real.</blockquote>

Verification