Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 7162420" data-attributes="member: 2011">I don't assume most actions, I just assume basic SOP actions. I assume that PCs look up, to the sides, around pillars, etc. when delving. I don't necessarily foreshadow clues that there might be a monster hanging out in the rafters. Sometimes I do. Sometimes I don't.Change of topic: This is one of the issues that I have had with D&D for a while (3E had this issue, but at least there was ways to purchase other skills later on). The PC Wizard has been watching the PC Rogue walk carefully around corners, or watched the PC Barbarian intimidate prisoners, or saw the Ranger glance around the room for hidden dangers over and over and over again.But yet, this PC is just as clueless (and technically even moreso because as PCs go higher in level, DCs tend to also climb) then when he started out at level 1. At level 1, his Perception is +1. At level 20, his Perception is +1. After watching many NPCs interrogated and standing there listening to how the Bard sets up a shopkeeper to get a better deal on purchases, he is still as lame 5 years later at these tasks as he was at level 1. He learns absolutely nothing about these other skills.Nor do the other PCs learn anything about Arcana or History. After listening to hundreds of tales around the campfire, they know no more about History than they did 5 years earlier. I don't think that 5E emulates gained knowledge and experience at all.I have not made houserule changes for skills, but I have added half proficiency bonuses to non-proficient saves. Why? Because after having survived Dragon breathe a half dozen or more times, the PC Bard should have seen how the Rogue avoids some of that damage over and over again and should be at least a little bit more experienced doing it. The Cleric should have been able to tell the other PCs how to keep harmful mental influences out of their minds by chanting to their god during battle, etc.PCs should be able to learn minor save and skill techniques from other PCs through natural interactions. The game doesn't emulate that part of real life. People learn a lot of skills not by training, but by necessity, by trying and failing or succeeding. Which is why I like skill learning computer games like Skyrim. If I use a skill a lot, I get better at it and I learn from experience. I wish there was an easy way to incorporate that into 5E.Interesting. I actually had a DM that was this way a few decades back and I actually sat at his table bored.He spoonfed the players with all kinds of warnings and clues and I sat there thinking "Thanks Captain Obvious" (I didn't actually think those specific words as that is more of a current meme). The game had little thrill because unexpected stuff rarely happened.It seems to be a game style of "pay attention and react to my hints, or be punished".The best part of suspense movies is the action and plot twists and turns, not the expected stuff.What is worse than a DM who hands out too many clues (not saying that you do that) is a DM who hands out clues that are too obscure or extremely hard to figure out ahead of time. That often results in a lot of wasted game time as players try to figure out some obscure puzzle or riddle or some such. The DM might even think that he is being transparent with his clues and the players are sitting there clueless.I prefer a game with a lot of surprises (and not just what type of monster du jour we are fighting). Having a pretty good idea of what is coming really is boring to me. I suspect that many players might prefer a balance between the two extremes.There is absolutely nothing wrong with the party Fighter rushing across the room to fight foes and he falls into a hidden pit trap on the way. It's part of the CR of the encounter. Sure, give him a semi-difficult in the heat of battle perception roll (after he moves his miniature over those squares, if he makes the perception roll, the miniature can be moved back, no hints ahead of time before the player moves the miniature, determine player intent first and not by asking him). If he doesn't make the roll, oh well. No foreshadowing. No clues. Just bad luck because he moved his miniature over the wrong square or groups of squares. I don't want the DM foreshadowing this by saying "You notice that none of the enemies are coming across the room at you". OMG that's so annoying. I can see that for myself. The DM putting an explanation point on it just means that he wants the PCs to be as knowledgeable as him. Why doesn't the DM just play my PC for me?And foreshadowing something in such detail that the dumbest person at the table gets it might mean that the smartest person at the table might lose interest.I was once in a game where I cast a fire spell and scorched some plants during a battle. The DM had me roll some type of perception roll and told me "that plant smells sweet" or some such. We were marooned on a "semi-desert island" with few supplies. Weeks later when the PCs were no longer on the island, the DM told us that he couldn't believe that nobody at the table had picked up on his clue that this particular type of plant could be used for food (if it smelled good, it probably tasted good). Sometimes, all of the players are the dumbest persons at the table. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm    :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" />I'm not saying to never foreshadow or give hints, I just think that the DM should be circumspect about it. Gotchas are totally fine and in fact, are part of the fun of the game for some players. Some of my best gaming memories are of bad stuff happening to my or other PCs because of unexpected stuff. Nobody remembers all of the wins. But everyone remembers when the rocks fell on the Rogue's head when he tried to steal the gems. The unexpected stuff is a lot of what makes campaigns memorable.</blockquote>

Verification