Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7305311" data-attributes="member: 97077">I don't make assumptions and I don't play word games. I also try to minimize specific contingencies in my prep because contingencies by their nature are potentially wasted prep (at least in terms of whether it happens in play). &quot;If players state that they’re watching for potential ambush spots, give them advantage when making these checks...&quot; is not likely going to be in my prep.When the players decide to send their characters into the adventure site, I ask them to declare what they are doing in general as they explore. They might choose to keep watch for hidden dangers (monsters, traps, hazards), forage, navigate, make a map, track, search for secret doors, etc. These tasks get resolved with passive checks if the outcome is uncertain. The DC varies by pace as does the chance of random encounters. Some tasks are impossible at certain paces. The tasks are trade-offs against one another since you can only do one at a time (unless you're a ranger in favored terrain).These are the kinds of tasks the PCs perform as they are going about their business. The players may decide upon hearing the description of the environment to undertake another specific task that isn't ongoing such as quickly searching a pile of rubble for valuables. This means their general task ends in favor of the new task which is resolved as normal. The expectation is that they will be reasonably specific in their statement of goal and approach so that I can adjudicate fairly.Your objection appears to be rooted in &quot;gotcha&quot; DMs who are looking for any misstep to punish the characters and/or the players. While I have seen these kinds of DMs in the past, they are very few nowadays in my experience.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7305311, member: 97077"] I don't make assumptions and I don't play word games. I also try to minimize specific contingencies in my prep because contingencies by their nature are potentially wasted prep (at least in terms of whether it happens in play). "If players state that they’re watching for potential ambush spots, give them advantage when making these checks..." is not likely going to be in my prep. When the players decide to send their characters into the adventure site, I ask them to declare what they are doing in general as they explore. They might choose to keep watch for hidden dangers (monsters, traps, hazards), forage, navigate, make a map, track, search for secret doors, etc. These tasks get resolved with passive checks if the outcome is uncertain. The DC varies by pace as does the chance of random encounters. Some tasks are impossible at certain paces. The tasks are trade-offs against one another since you can only do one at a time (unless you're a ranger in favored terrain). These are the kinds of tasks the PCs perform as they are going about their business. The players may decide upon hearing the description of the environment to undertake another specific task that isn't ongoing such as quickly searching a pile of rubble for valuables. This means their general task ends in favor of the new task which is resolved as normal. The expectation is that they will be reasonably specific in their statement of goal and approach so that I can adjudicate fairly. Your objection appears to be rooted in "gotcha" DMs who are looking for any misstep to punish the characters and/or the players. While I have seen these kinds of DMs in the past, they are very few nowadays in my experience. [/QUOTE]

Verification