D&D 5E "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.

[5ekyu]

This is why I prefer to give Advantage based on situational things. “I’m looking for an ambush” won’t get you Advantage because I assume you’re a competent adventurer who is generally always looking for an ambush. Stating it outloud is all well and good, but you’re not really doing anything to gain that advantage. Now, if you’re traveling in uneven terrain and you decide to take the high ground in order to get a better vantage point from which to spot potential ambushes, now that’s something you could get Advantage for. Because it’s a unique circumstance that you are taking, well, advantage of. And ideally, that choice should come at an opportunity cost. Maybe taking the low ground would have been a faster route or something. That way the choice is a meaningful one; you’re weighing your options (do we take the faster route or the safer one?) and making an informed decision based on what you imagine your character would do given the situation at hand. And isn’t that what roleplaying is all about? (Rhetorical question. That is what roleplaying is all about for me. If it’s not for others, that’s cool. Different strokes.)

Agree

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[5ekyu]

LOL! There is no wrong way to play, but my player style would not match with your GMing style. No sin either way.

No problemo.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Von Ether]

And ideally, that choice should come at an opportunity cost. Maybe taking the low ground would have been a faster route or something. That way the choice is a meaningful one; you’re weighing your options (do we take the faster route or the safer one?) and making an informed decision based on what you imagine your character would do given the situation at hand.

I used to play a game, Battletech, where you could increase damage by risking bad things happening to the robot you were piloting. But you knew if the odds were in your favor, a potential reward, for the risk. That sounds like an opportunity cost.

These examples of opportunity costs, though sound too vague to me. You could go on a hill to get a better lay of the land ... and get shot by a sniper or give away your position.

Without a chance to get an advantage as an actual advantage instead of being a trade off, the choices seem irrelevant as method of getting a step up on the bad guys.

They do seem more valid in picking the location of a fight. On a valley floor or on a hilltop.

In that case, if the party has rangers and druids, a verdant valley floor fight becomes a good tactical decision. So then the opportunity cost has weight.

I guess I am an old softy as a GM. I'd rather have a party that has a ranger/druid not only smartly pick terrain in their favor but also get Advantage in avoiding an ambush because the described how they were avoiding it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I used to play a game, Battletech, where you could increase damage by risking bad things happening to the robot you were piloting. But you knew if the odds were in your favor, a potential reward, for the risk. That sounds like an opportunity cost.

Sounds like a good game mechanic.

These examples of opportunity costs, though sound too vague to me. You could go on a hill to get a better lay of the land ... and get shot by a sniper or give away your position.

Sure! That’s a factor the characters in the world would need to consider, and as such, One the players should need to consider.

Without a chance to get an advantage as an actual advantage instead of being a trade off, the choices seem irrelevant as method of getting a step up on the bad guys.

It’s not that the players don’t have the chance to get an actual advantage without sacrificing something. It’s that they have to do something beyond “the same thing we were doing anyway, but with Advantage” to get an advantage. And doing something means making a conscious choice, which usually means sacrificing your ability to take other options.

They do seem more valid in picking the location of a fight. On a valley floor or on a hilltop.

In that case, if the party has rangers and druids, a verdant valley floor fight becomes a good tactical decision. So then the opportunity cost has weight.

I guess I am an old softy as a GM. I'd rather have a party that has a ranger/druid not only smartly pick terrain in their favor but also get Advantage in avoiding an ambush because the described how they were avoiding it.

I’ll give the players advantage at avoiding the ambush for describing how they avoid it. Provided, of course, that their approach to avoiding thd ambush has a chance of succeeding at helping them avoid it, a chance of not helping them avoid it, and takes advantage of the circumstances such that they would have a better chance of avoiding the ambush this way than they would simply by staying alert and aware. Now, if those conditions are satisfied in a way that doesn’t come at a tradeoff, I’m not going to make one up. They earned that advantage. But more often than not, making a choice to take advantage of one part of your circumstances means not taking advantage of another. In a very literal sense, it costs you the opportunity of the options you didn’t take.

 

[Sunseeker]

I used to play a game, Battletech, where you could increase damage by risking bad things happening to the robot you were piloting. But you knew if the odds were in your favor, a potential reward, for the risk. That sounds like an opportunity cost.

I think this is one of the bigger complaints I have with some GMs. If preparing for the known unknowns (possibilities of bandit ambuses) just means we're going to get ambushed by bears instead (an unknown unknown), what's the point? Sure we can't expect to have perfect knowledge of what's before us, but if we have reasonable expectations that the danger we need to concern ourselves with is bandit attacks, doesn't that seem to imply that bear attacks are not a reasonable expection?

In a table I had to walk away from the DM operated like this. We could prepare for rain...and we'd get a tornado. We could prepare for sun, and we'd get a blizzard. The consequences of us attempting to prepare for reasonable possible outcomes was more extreme impossible outcomes, things we could never have seen coming.

I don't mind as a player, being expected to take reasonable preparations based on known knowns (bandit attacks) and known unknowns (rumors the bandits have been experimenting with lycanthrope-blood), but there's a clear line between when you have reasonable prepared for possible outcomes....and the DM just wanting to hit you with a stick. Some DMs like to hit their players with sticks, and it shows pretty quickly. It's also fairly tiring.

In the game I mentioned above, we basically stopped preparing for anything and planning anything out...because it was simpler to just do it and take the stick as it comes than to bother with thinking ahead.

 

[5ekyu]

I think this is one of the bigger complaints I have with some GMs. If preparing for the known unknowns (possibilities of bandit ambuses) just means we're going to get ambushed by bears instead (an unknown unknown), what's the point? Sure we can't expect to have perfect knowledge of what's before us, but if we have reasonable expectations that the danger we need to concern ourselves with is bandit attacks, doesn't that seem to imply that bear attacks are not a reasonable expection?

In a table I had to walk away from the DM operated like this. We could prepare for rain...and we'd get a tornado. We could prepare for sun, and we'd get a blizzard. The consequences of us attempting to prepare for reasonable possible outcomes was more extreme impossible outcomes, things we could never have seen coming.

Replying to both you and Von's last post...

i do not think what was attributed with the bugbear bandit case was what was being described by myself at all. nor is the "rain" vs tornado.

My case invoked more of random monster encounters checks for moving slowly, taking more time, literally spending more time out in the area. I have not seen linking how many random monmster checks to how long you are out where they can happen as a problem in general. i also linked moving slowing and cautiously when pursuing a foe as leading to delaying the point at which you catch the group you are chasing... again something not "out of the blue."

I would also rule that moving to travel at the top of a ridge or whatever for better viewpoints as having its own drawbacks as well, like possibly being easier to spot (if you have moved out from the natural cover of "light foliage" or if you are now putting yourself at a distance you would need to cover to get back to the ground if something happened (assuming the whole party, horses and all, did not go to the ridge with you) or at the very least from the ridge your ability to spot tracks and clues from the groups trail would be less. That spearated some on ridge and some not might well be an issue if one group gets a wandering encounter.

All of these are allowing the player's choices to matter as far as how their characters PRIORITIZE the risks - known and unknoiwn.

Consider, what if the bad guys had dropped caltrops along their path? Then the ridge move would bypass those for all those choosing the ridge even though it was an unknown threat. Similarly, there might be varmints on the ridge

But the key is this - in these cases the players are choosing to prioritize some risks over others, priritize some objectives over others.

"We can handle any small ambush but if the main group gets too close to their base we will be screwed completely, so lets risk the ambush and hurry."

That is a net trade-off where the objectives are influencing the determination of which risk to take.

"We need to not give ourselves away so running into an ambush is out of the question. if they get to the base, we have enough stealth to sneak in anyway as long as we surprise them and an ambush blows that. . So lets take this slow and use surprise rather than speed."

Again, same situation but different priorities based on different plans for how to deal with the challenges.

In either case, the choices lead to advantages and disadvantages determined by their nature... not some newly created GM screw job where the PCs have to be shown wrong.

its simply using the already established principle that you can gain a bonus for a given thing if you give up something else that is related ans sensible - in a broad sense - as it appears all through the 5e rules (and many rules in many games.)

Obviously, sometimes circumstances themselves would apply advantage- like in this case of pursuing a significantly large force the tracking would be against a very easy DC due to the size of the enemy and their rate/nature of travel. (had they slowed down to cover tracks, reduce signs of passage - that could change that but at a price.)

but hey, thats me. Obviously other GMs can rule differently.

 

[redrick]

I think this is one of the bigger complaints I have with some GMs. If preparing for the known unknowns (possibilities of bandit ambuses) just means we're going to get ambushed by bears instead (an unknown unknown), what's the point? Sure we can't expect to have perfect knowledge of what's before us, but if we have reasonable expectations that the danger we need to concern ourselves with is bandit attacks, doesn't that seem to imply that bear attacks are not a reasonable expection?

In a table I had to walk away from the DM operated like this. We could prepare for rain...and we'd get a tornado. We could prepare for sun, and we'd get a blizzard. The consequences of us attempting to prepare for reasonable possible outcomes was more extreme impossible outcomes, things we could never have seen coming.

I don't mind as a player, being expected to take reasonable preparations based on known knowns (bandit attacks) and known unknowns (rumors the bandits have been experimenting with lycanthrope-blood), but there's a clear line between when you have reasonable prepared for possible outcomes....and the DM just wanting to hit you with a stick. Some DMs like to hit their players with sticks, and it shows pretty quickly. It's also fairly tiring.

In the game I mentioned above, we basically stopped preparing for anything and planning anything out...because it was simpler to just do it and take the stick as it comes than to bother with thinking ahead.

Absolutely. I've seen the same thing. Players "outsmart" the DM, but nobody can outsmart the DM, so the DM just moves the goalposts. It's boring.

For these sorts of tradeoffs to work, the DM has to be reasonably consistent in how they apply ambient world danger. So, in the example discussed between Charlaquin, 5yeku and Von Ether, where the players choose to move at a slower pace in order to better keep an eye out for the ambush they know is coming, the players, roughly understand the tradeoffs. And, to be honest, for most wilderness travel systems, where random encounters are rolled once or twice a day, the trade-offs are pretty good. The players know the ambush is coming, somewhere. They know that every day on the road risks a random encounter, but, if you go by most traditional wilderness encounter systems, the odds are not great. Moving at a slow pace increases their travel time by 1.5, so they would take 3 days to travel ~50 miles instead of 2. But they also will be moving carefully and looking out for any signs of trouble, which not only gives them an advantage in spotting their ambush (which they know is coming), but also, potentially, gives them a better opportunity to avoid or ambush any other wandering monsters they might encounter. It feels like a pretty solidly Good outcome for the PCs. Of course, the difference between 2 and 3 days might be a big deal for other in-game reasons.

(If the DM rolls wilderness encounters every hour and a 6 day trip is about to turn into a 9 day trip, hopefully the PCs are able to learn a little more about the ambush so that they can better pinpoint the area of travel in which they need to expect it.)

 

[5ekyu]

Absolutely. I've seen the same thing. Players "outsmart" the DM, but nobody can outsmart the DM, so the DM just moves the goalposts. It's boring.

For these sorts of tradeoffs to work, the DM has to be reasonably consistent in how they apply ambient world danger. So, in the example discussed between Charlaquin, 5yeku and Von Ether, where the players choose to move at a slower pace in order to better keep an eye out for the ambush they know is coming, the players, roughly understand the tradeoffs. And, to be honest, for most wilderness travel systems, where random encounters are rolled once or twice a day, the trade-offs are pretty good. The players know the ambush is coming, somewhere. They know that every day on the road risks a random encounter, but, if you go by most traditional wilderness encounter systems, the odds are not great. Moving at a slow pace increases their travel time by 1.5, so they would take 3 days to travel ~50 miles instead of 2. But they also will be moving carefully and looking out for any signs of trouble, which not only gives them an advantage in spotting their ambush (which they know is coming), but also, potentially, gives them a better opportunity to avoid or ambush any other wandering monsters they might encounter. It feels like a pretty solidly Good outcome for the PCs. Of course, the difference between 2 and 3 days might be a big deal for other in-game reasons.

(If the DM rolls wilderness encounters every hour and a 6 day trip is about to turn into a 9 day trip, hopefully the PCs are able to learn a little more about the ambush so that they can better pinpoint the area of travel in which they need to expect it.)

Exactly... reasonable benefits and consequences applied consistently is different from retributive novelties.

 

[Von Ether]

Absolutely. I've seen the same thing. Players "outsmart" the DM, but nobody can outsmart the DM, so the DM just moves the goalposts. It's boring.

For these sorts of tradeoffs to work, the DM has to be reasonably consistent in how they apply ambient world danger. So, in the example discussed between Charlaquin, 5yeku and Von Ether, where the players choose to move at a slower pace in order to better keep an eye out for the ambush they know is coming, the players, roughly understand the tradeoffs. And, to be honest, for most wilderness travel systems, where random encounters are rolled once or twice a day, the trade-offs are pretty good. The players know the ambush is coming, somewhere. They know that every day on the road risks a random encounter, but, if you go by most traditional wilderness encounter systems, the odds are not great. Moving at a slow pace increases their travel time by 1.5, so they would take 3 days to travel ~50 miles instead of 2. But they also will be moving carefully and looking out for any signs of trouble, which not only gives them an advantage in spotting their ambush (which they know is coming), but also, potentially, gives them a better opportunity to avoid or ambush any other wandering monsters they might encounter. It feels like a pretty solidly Good outcome for the PCs. Of course, the difference between 2 and 3 days might be a big deal for other in-game reasons.

(If the DM rolls wilderness encounters every hour and a 6 day trip is about to turn into a 9 day trip, hopefully the PCs are able to learn a little more about the ambush so that they can better pinpoint the area of travel in which they need to expect it.)

Stated this way, I can get behind this example. It shows that the player's decisions give them a literal advantage for engaging in choices. As some other posters have confirmed, there's GM's who unintentionally parody this to the point that making no choice is better simply because it wastes less time getting the inevitable.

But that actually brings us back to the real question.

In one such case in a published product the rules provide this pearl a ruling.

"If players state that they’re watching for potential ambush spots, give them advantage when making these checks"

[FONT=Roboto, Helvetica, sans-serif]...
Thanks.

Was the product an adventure or a rule book?

Organizing a rule book is an exercise in figuring out how many corner cases you can cover with the budget and time you have. You can't anticipate everything GMs and players are going to do, so you chose what corner cases you can cover with explicit rules or provide some inspiring advice on how to use the rules at hand.

On the other hand, an adventure has all that information right there, the wandering monster charts, how many days in this particular adventure will it take the PCs to catch up with their targets, what could also be waiting to ambush them. Then it's a bit sad there was only one bland rule instead of a quick discussion of options.

At the end of the day, though, the best gaming accessory to process all that info and trade offs is the GM. Don't forget though, every game is different. Some players will love mulling over those options. Other players will just want to rush ahead and save the ... whatever.

 

[5ekyu]

Stated this way, I can get behind this example. It shows that the player's decisions give them a literal advantage for engaging in choices. As some other posters have confirmed, there's GM's who unintentionally parody this to the point that making no choice is better simply because it wastes less time getting the inevitable.

But that actually brings us back to the real question.



Was the product an adventure or a rule book?

Organizing a rule book is an exercise in figuring out how many corner cases you can cover with the budget and time you have. You can't anticipate everything GMs and players are going to do, so you chose what corner cases you can cover with explicit rules or provide some inspiring advice on how to use the rules at hand.

On the other hand, an adventure has all that information right there, the wandering monster charts, how many days in this particular adventure will it take the PCs to catch up with their targets, what could also be waiting to ambush them. Then it's a bit sad there was only one bland rule instead of a quick discussion of options.

At the end of the day, though, the best gaming accessory to process all that info and trade offs is the GM. Don't forget though, every game is different. Some players will love mulling over those options. Other players will just want to rush ahead and save the ... whatever.

it was an AP and the jaw dropper was that that statement followed a very good section on "if they found out this from that interaction then..." which listed several cases of using info gained along the way and adjusting their ambush encounter ranges, spottting difficulties etc with the knowledge gained in these prior/optional encounters and a baseline presumption of competence.

Literally, if they had been told of the group setting up the ambush and had been told likely spots they tend to use, they would get an EASY check at long range to spot the ambush. if they were clueless, they would get a HARD check at much much closer range (within combat range.) This was an assumed granted benefit from having the knowledge, assumed characters used that info.


But if the player stated "looking for ambush" they got advantage on those rolls...

So the rules setup the case that "we know there is an ambush force. we know several places we expect them to be. because of this we will be able to get closer before we get noticed." but allows that maybe the characters are not "looking for an ambush" unless the players state it to gain an advantage???

it was a jarring disconnect and to me a clash of editions and approaches - one assumes character competence and the other more of a "say you look up" gotcha sort of thing.