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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7596295" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I've been spelling my mindset out pretty explicitly. Yes, a check is an undesirable outcome of an action in my games. If dice are getting rolled it's because <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> is getting real, we're in a situation with a real possibility of failure and meaningful stakes. If possible, you want to avoid having to roll dice by taking precautions ahead of time, and employing approaches that minimize chance of failure. When the dice do need to be rolled, you want to expend resources to mitigate the chance of failure. I wouldn't say it's necessarily the worst outcome, because there is still a chance of success as well, and probably a pretty good one if you are employing tactics that play to your character's strengths and using abilities and resources to help improve your chances. But if there isn't dramatic tension involved, there doesn't need to be a dice roll in my opinion.Another point of order here. I imagine you're going to see this as me being pedantic again, like how I differentiate between "action" and "check", but like with the difference between an action and a check, this is a fundamental part of my DMing philosophy that you will struggle to understand my DM philosophy if you dismiss out of hand.Rolling dice is not the primary resolution mechanic of the game, in my view. The primary resolution mechanic is using a human brain to imagine a fictional scenario and determine the likely outcome of the action within that scenario. If, and only if the outcome can not be determined by this method alone, then rolling dice is a tool to help make that determination.That's why a "Athletics check" is not enough information for me to resolve the action. That doesn't give me a clear picture of what is going on, so I cannot properly employ the primary resolution mechanic. I don't know if it is appropriate to call for a check yet or not, because I cannot picture what your character is doing in the physical world and use my brain to determine if what you're doing might work, not work, and/or have consequences.Giving players information on the potential consequences of their actions is kind of a fundamental aspect of the DMing style that I have been referring to as "goal and approach," or occasionally "the middle path." But ok, fine, forget that style for a second. My question is, is your disagreement with the assertion that giving players information about the consequences of their actions leads to better and more dramatic roleplaying based on experience employing this technique (the one where you tell your players the potential consequences of their actions) and finding that it did not lead to better and more dramatic roleplaying than when you don't give said information? Or are you basing it only on your experience running your game not doing that, and this leading to a level of drama in your roleplaying that you are satisfied with?The gotcha to me is in justifying "the character couldn't possibly know the chandelier might break if they fail their check" with "The chandelier looks sturdy enough to support the character's weight, but the beams supporting it have rotted in such a way that is not immediately obvious to the player." You are using your own choice to hide the details the character would need for the player to make an informed decision as an excuse for not giving the player enough details to make an informed decision.It is my opinion that if a player is being asked to make a decision, they should always be sufficiently informed to not make a bad choice based on lack of information. If the player has to choose between trying to roll past the guards and trying to swing to the other side, they should also know that if they fail to roll past the guards, the guards will catch them, and if they fail to swing to the other side, they will fall. It is in my opinion the DM's responsibility to make sure that information is accessible to the player. If "there's no way the character could know" something that they would need to know to make an informed decision, then the DM has failed in that responsibility. As the person who created the scenario, the DM should set the scenario up in such a way that they character could know any important details.Yes, there's no way for the character to know about the rotten beams. So, the DM shouldn't be using rotten beams here. They should be using a chandelier that is obviously not sturdy enough to hold the character's weight for more than a couple seconds.If you were not made aware that a dangerous magical disturbance was a possible outcome of your action, then a dangerous magical disturbance that occurs as a result of your action is not a consequence of your decision. You did not decide to accept that risk, you walked into it blindly.I would say "chaotic magical energies are held in place by this circle" to be sufficient telegraphing. If the player knows this, and still decides to take an action that has a potential risk of releasing those chaotic magical energies, I consider it common courtesy to give the player an "are you sure?" To remind them, "ok, but if you fail, the chaotic magical energies will be released." That is an informed decision. If the player decides to accept that risk and fails, that's on them. Simply saying "I make an Arcana check to disable the circle! Oh no, natural 1..." and being slapped with consequences for that natural 1 isn't an informed decision. The consequences of that natural 1 aren't on the player, they're on the dice, because the player didn't knowingly accept the risk, they blindly guessed that Arcana was the right one of the 18 buttons on their character sheet to push, and the dice landed on the "bad things happen" side.I disagree, but fun is subjective, so if that's more fun to you, awesome.It's clear to me that in failing to disperse a large amount of magical energy something would happen. I don't want to assume that it is clear to the players. As I said in my earlier post, I don't think it's necessary to tell the players exactly what will happen. "Failing will release the large amount of magical energy that is being contained in this circle, you still want to go through with it?" is perfectly sufficient. Now I know for certain that the player is aware that this action is potentially dangerous. If they want to try it anyway, that's an informed decision. If they decide to do some more research to try to figure out what might happen, that is an informed decision. But if I don't tell them, "hey, something bad might happen if you fail," I don't know that they're making the decision to try to disrupt the circle with full information. They might think that this action might just succeed, or might just fail, or if we're playing in a game where dice rolls are sometimes called for despite the action not having consequences for failure, then they might think that failing will just lead to nothing happening. I'm not a mind-reader and I don't like to make assumptions, so I'm going to make sure my players are aware of the consequences before I make them commit to the action.</blockquote>

Verification