Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7591946" data-attributes="member: 42582">I wanted to second [MENTION=6801204]Satyrn[/MENTION]'s remark that it is possible to "telegraph" traps, to establish fiction that trap-interested players can pick up on, without introducing contradictions.What those might actually look like - bloodstains, mismatched tiles, holes in the wall, etc (I'm just parroting [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] here) - would depend on mood, context, past narration, etc.I'm also not sure how many of the "goal and approach" advocates are playing dungeons in the sense that you describe here. I think more than one poster has already suggested that traps are a distinctive rather than generic occurence in the adventures they are running. So it mayu be that this particular problem, of finding meaningful framing for multile geographically and temporally proximate traps, doesn't come up much for them.I could be wrong, but you seem here to suggest that "an ability check" is an abstractly existing thing, or a latent element of the fiction. Whereas an ability check is clearly an event that occurs at the table in order to decide certain things about the fiction.So the question is, Is flagging down the waitress as that possibility has arisen here-and-now in the play of the game the sort of moment in the fiction that, at our table and by the rules of our game, requires an ability check to resolve it? DIfferent tables might answer differently. But if one table answers no, then that's that - the fiction unfolds without any check being needed to determine how it unfolds. There's no (abstract, possible) check that's been "skipped over".I'm not across the shopkeeper example, but just picking up on this: I think what makes the fiction interesting, in adventure-oriented RPGing, is what is at stake. And in the example of being spotted by a goblin scout, it seems that quite a bit might be at stake. So I'm missing why is not interesting.One answer would be that the rules force a division between the GM deciding that no check is called for and the GM deciding to call for a check, and setting a DC, which the player of the rogue can't miss. This happens in my 4e game quite a bit, because the Sage of Ages epic destiny somewhat breaks the maths of skill checks, with the result that most knowledge skills are auto-succcesses for the player of that character; but the skill challenge rules still require me to call for checks from that player: which means I have to distinguish between events which are unfolding fiction with no need for a check (eg because nothing is at stake) and events which involve stakes in respect of the unfolding fiction, and hence do call for a check (even if it's an auto-success).I think this could also work in 5e, although if a GM is using PC capabilities as an element in determining whether or not a check is requred then it could be that sometimes Reliable Talent factors into adjudication at that point, rather than affecting the resolution of a check.</blockquote>

Verification