Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7162356" data-attributes="member: 97077">My philosophy is that things don't exist until you establish them in some way. But once established, consistency with regard to what is established is key to creating the space for players to be able to act with agency. There really aren't hill giants in those hills until I say there are directly or begin to telegraph the same more subtly. I still wouldn't call the decision to include them or not to be whim though at least where I am concerned. I guess we can disagree on that term. It's not important.With regard to the three methods detailed in the "Role of the Dice" section in the DMG, notably two of the approaches are said to have potential drawbacks. "The Middle Path" does not. So it's really no wonder why I go that route with this game system. It also appears to solve, in part, a lot of issues that people report with the game system. I just don't have the problems that we see reported day in and day out on the forums, such as the one that kicked off this thread where Perception appears to be an "obvious choice." That's only so because of how certain folks run their games. Which is why if I do have an issue where the game's a little wobbly, I look to what I'm doing first because that's probably where the problem originates.I'm not so sure that rolling the dice really is fair in all cases, nor do I think that narrating automatic success and failure without the dice being involved demonstrates somehow that the world revolves around the PCs. It just means that the players have some control over the outcomes based on the efficacy of their decisions in the face of what the DM has described - and that's what players should want. Randomness is not their friend. Which also goes to explain why players optimize in the manner you describe. Because if you're going to end up rolling more often than not, you may as well jack that bonus up as high as possible in as many skills as possible.Somehow I get the impression that you think I don't say "No" or words to that effect. I have no qualms about saying a character has failed to achieve their goal based on the stated approach and the situation as described without any dice rolling.I'll take it a step further and say that asking questions of the DM is often tantamount to cheating. It's playing it safe - a question isn't an action and carries with it no possibility of failure and any consequences arising from that failure. So rather than play the game, the player steps out of the game and has a conversation with the DM who is usually more than willing to answer questions all night long (because what DM doesn't want to talk about their world?!). It's brilliant, right? And almost nobody seems to notice what the players are actually doing. That said, it could also be a sign that the DM isn't adequately performing Step 1 - DM describes the environment. So that's something to watch in my view.I think assuming the actions of the characters is effectively stealing from the players. The DM already controls two-thirds of the basic conversation of the game (Steps 1 and 3). Assuming or describing the actions of the characters is encroaching on the player's role in that conversation (Step 2) in my view. I don't think this is a good idea.Yes, in my game, you have to tell me what you're doing. You don't have to be doing any particular thing. There are also no "gotchas," because I am telegraphing threats all the time. Clues are embedded in the description of the environment. Events and hazards are foreshadowed. If you are paying attention and engaging with the environment, you will have every opportunity to avoid undesirable outcomes if you play well. If you aren't paying attention or you arrive at an erroneous conclusion or take a silly action, you will probably pay for it. But you will be able to look back and say "You know what - I was warned." It's only a gotcha when there was no telegraphing, foreshadowing, or warning.On the topic of surprise, that's another issue that contributes to players taking Perception a lot. There just isn't a lot of surprise in my games. Only some monsters are going to be natural lurkers in my view and, if the players are paying attention as to how the dungeon reacts to them, they'll know when surprise is more likely (such as having alerted the monsters to their presence and given them time to prepare). They can change their plans accordingly to avoid the outcomes they don't want. Suddenly it's now too dangerous to put three characters on tasks other than Keeping Watch, so let's all stay on guard until the threat passes, for example. Or have characters with low passive Perception score Work Together with others to make sure their heavy hitters aren't surprised, provided the former are in the position where being surprised isn't going to be a big deal for them (such as if they are in the back rank). And so on.</blockquote>

Verification