Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7588692" data-attributes="member: 16814">Why do you so badly want to say "I rolled a 17 perception!" rather than, "I take a minute and carefully look over the door for traps?"  I mean, really, you're entirely focused on an aesthetic choice of declaration and entirely missing the point -- with goal and approach I do not have to do the assuming you're happy to do in 80% of your rolls.  Further, it's never always obvious if your assumption matches the player's -- ie, it's not a hard line at your made up 80/20 split where you always, always know if this is a 79th percentile declaration or an 81st.  I never have this problem because it's always 100% I have the player tell me.Further, there is NO time savings to your method.  I've played both ways, remember. I was on your side of this discussion 3 years ago and was quite rude to [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION] in the process because I didn't get it, either, even though I really thought I did.  I know how you play because I played that way and made your same arguments.  And, I can tell you from experience, I get more done in a single session than I did before, with no less time for bsing and silly interruptions.  You keep asserting that letting players call for checks quickly skips boring interactions, but that's not my experience -- my experience is that I don't have to put in the boring interactions anymore for them to be something to skip over.Studied inattention, again.  You've been told that the DC of a check or possibility of autosuccess isn't dependent on magic words, but on the overall situation.  Take the poisoned doorknob example.  If I had a PC who had time, was trained in poisoner's kit, and said, "I carefully wipe off the doorknob with a cloth," that would likely be autosuccess because they have the requisite training and I reward approaches that lean into character skills.  At worst, they'd have advantage for their training.  If Bob the Fighter said the same thing, Bob's making a DEX check.  If Bob has a background in roguish things, he can add his proficiency in a skill that fits (I'm flexible, so I can see sleight of hand, thieves' tools, etc.).Proficiency is stupid important in my games.  Being proficient is likely to get automatic additional information on a scene, and stronger consideration for autosuccess on a related approach than lack.  There are plenty of places that I let someone proficient succeed outright where the non-proficient get a roll (usually these are low DC checks, though, or things that fit very squarely into the specialize training represented by a proficiency).Let me paraphrase this and see if you notice the problem:"Why is killling/capturing the BBEG with a couple of dice rolls a deal breaker if you aren't the person doing it and it takes a minute of so to resolve?"If I place a trap in my game, it's important to the game. It's a big obstacle to the goal.  It isn't a random drop in just to be there or something that doesn't matter.  It's very presence means it's important to the game.  So, skipping it with a "couple of dice rolls" is akin to you letting you players capture the BBEG from the comfort of the tavern by just making a few skill checks.  It's skipping the point of playing.I'll say it again, and bold it, so that maybe you catch it this time:  we don't have pointless traps in our games that need any mechanism to shortcuts the boring stuff.  A trap in our games will be a big part of the adventure, much like an important combat or important social encounter.  They are not things that need to be elided because they're boring to play out and show up often enough to need a SOP.  This is not a problem we have at all, so your "solution" doesn't address anything in our games.Because it hides the game.  Honestly, if you want your players to live in a cloud of confusion because even on a success the fiction doesn't appreciably change.  You've said that a successful Insight check to detect a lie will usually get a vague "he seems evasive" response.  Good grief, why are you doing this even in your style?!  If the players succeed, do not be a jerk and hide the game, give them their success.  If you allow a check, let that check mean something more than just 'you get a feeling he might be lying.'  GAH!  My entry into this thread was to tell the OP that he appears to be hiding too much of his game.  I make this recommendation to anyone, without regard to preference for how you use dice:  DO NOT HIDE YOUR GAME!  If your think you need to keep the players in the dark, you really need to realize that players are already in the dark -- they only ever can know what you've told them, and we all do a lousy job telling anyone else everything we know.  So, stop doing this.  Give information when the players earn it, either through open roleplay, if that's your bag, or players asking for checks and succeeding, if that's it, or using goal and approach, or any other method of resolution.  HONOR THE RESOLUTION!  Let the players actually succeed!  I see too much of 'well, if I tell them outright, that removes the mystery!'  This is YOUR PROBLEM AS A GM!  Your mystery sucks if it's hinges on the players not knowing if this one guy is lying.  Do better, don't hide information as a crutch for your poor planning or need to force an outcome because your prep says the players have to fall for the lie.The above two paras are general, not specific yous.  If you feel this is talking to you, specifically, you should examine why that is.  Maybe it is talking to you specifically.</blockquote>

Verification