Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 7589916" data-attributes="member: 6801228">I hope people don't mind the double post, but [MENTION=6801328]Elfcrusher[/MENTION] is right that responding to everything is starting to get too long for people to go throughOkay, but let me call back to the original quote by [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION]"This is why vague statements like, “I check for traps” are a poor strategy. Yes, if I just said I check for traps without saying what I’m doing to check for them, we have little choice but to determine what my character was doing that resulted in that failure retroactively. The dice are generating the story - we didn’t really know what my character was doing until we found out whether it worked or not, and then we came up with a narrative explanation for the result. And if you like to play that way, more power to you! I do not like to play that way, because it puts my successes and failures in the hands of chance. I want my successes and failures to be in my hands. I enjoy the game more when I succeed because I thought of a clever plan or fail because I took a calculated risk and it didn’t pay off."According to this, the player declared an action "check for traps" but that was not specific enough, so when the roll happened we had to fill in story of why the result happened. The approach and action of "check for traps" is not enough. By accepting that it is enough for a roll to be called for, I am being told I am putting the cart before the horse... because the player needs to declare an action first? An action that has consequences? Like checking for traps? How much more is needed? How specific an action must the player take? Where am I justified in calling for a check without somehow doing something seen as wrong by some of the posters here? You are saying that I am calling for checks instead of actions, but a series of actions were called by the player. Why is that not good enough to call for a check in response? I'm not sure I entirely follow all of this. Information still needs to be hidden, otherwise the players wouldn't need to form an approach in the first place.Information can be gained by rolling a knowledge check, otherwise what are knowledge checks used for? Yeah, don't make plot relevant stuff revolve around a single die roll, but that doesn't mean plot relevant stuff can't be found with a die rollYes, which is why I try and limit myself so that I am not using too much meta knowledge. That's why I ask to roll instead of just assuming my character knows. So, you don't roll knowledge checks except when you do?Edit: May be a bit snarkier than I intended, but seeing if they can piece together those carvings is a perfect knowledge check. However, in my understanding of your conclusion, the check failed so they got wrong information which led to them triggering the curse. Perhaps I’m wrong and the curse was triggered by them touching it in an attempt to decipher… but then success or failure of the roll would have led to the mummies, because touching it activated the curse. So, either I’m misunderstanding your conclusion, or your knowledge check led to the player learning the wrong information on a failed roll. Which is exactly what you said you didn’t like. Because they enjoy building a story together? Just because they can't describe how a lightning bolt killed the lich king in the final climatic moments of the campaign or how Jimmy failed to disarm a trap doesn't mean they can't play the game. Remember, this line of conversation started because you (and many others) took offense to how I would have narrated a failure of the dice in an extremely sarcastic example. How could a poisoner miss poison on a door handle if they spent five minutes looking at it from every angle? Well, the only way I can imagine a professional missing that kind of detail is because they weren't paying as close attention as they thought.And, it isn't a situation I normally handle, because normally, I don't have players call out looking at the door handle. I also rarely have traps on door handles. Since this applies directly to myself and my knowledge, as that was the nature of my answer, then I will respond in the specific instead of the general. I know a lot, A LOT, more about this game than most of my DMs. Maybe not knowing something was the challenge, maybe they just didn't think anyone would know and it would be a cool reveal. Maybe they don't even know. Sometimes my asking to roll for a knowledge check about something I know has revealed that I knew a detail about that lore that the DM had no clue about. This is why I ask to roll, instead of just assuming that my character knows everything that I know. Because I know far more than most characters should know at low levels. Okay, so square this circle for me. I should not ask to roll for what my character knows, I should just have them know what I know. Except that can be dangerous because the world might not be the same as what I know, because the DM changed it. So I should come up with a backstory reason why I should know. But how do we know if I actually know, for example, how do we know that this Sage actually read anything about Black Puddings? To me, there is uncertainty. When there is uncertainty, you roll the dice. But I should not roll the dice unless things can become worse by failing. And failing to know something is not a consequence worth rolling dice about. Also, I should never ask for a check, I should just declare I know. After all, if I declare my character is a monster expert, then I do not need to ask the DM if I know anything about these monsters. I tell the DM I know, because I am a monster expert, and they cannot tell me I do not know. This is the morass I am finding myself in, with this thread.I agree, but as this discussion has progressed we have this, "I check the door for traps" failed roll"Okay, what happens""I don't know"Player is at fault? So, I should ask the player to be more specific with their action. "I look over the entire door, taking a magnifying glass to sections that seem likely to hide traps"Roll? Outcome is still uncertain, they could miss somethingBut, can't just have them not find anything, that isn't enough of a consequence to their roll. So..."As you peer through the magnifying glass, you forget to stand far enough back accidentally press against the door and trigger the blade trap"Also wrong because now I've told the player what they were doing. Also, the player should have told me how they failed? Taken as a whole, this conversation has grown very confusing to follow what advice people actually are trying to give.</blockquote>

Verification