Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 7305375" data-attributes="member: 7006">While playing 5E I am very much a narrative DM, with the expectation that actions "in-story" are accomplished to the best of a PCs ability without the player needing to say "I'm doing something really well!"  Of course they are.  I don't ever assume characters are intentionally doing something not to their best ability.  Thus... in order to gain Advantage on a special task it's usually because of one of two things:1) They have a special feature, ability, feat, or Bond/Ideal/Flaw/Trait that specifically says they are really good at something (over and above a normal other character)...2) They give me a method for changing the parameters of the "story" to explain to me why they would gain Advantage on a particular check.So using your "Watching out for an ambush" example... they could get Advantage on their Perception checks.  But it would require more than just stating they were "watching out for an ambush", because of course the characters would be watching out for an ambush.  In order to get Advantage they would need to have something over and above just being intelligent creatures that adventure.In reference to point #1 above... if someone for example had a Personality Trait "Eyes In The Back Of Their Head", then that PC's whole narrative existence is expecting to be ambushed all the time.  In this particular scenario, I'd give the player Advantage because the PC is always looking for ambushes.  Now, of course someone is going to say "If you are giving a boon like that for just making it a Personality Trait, why wouldn't EVERY player write that on their sheet?"  To which my response is that BECAUSE I am a "narrative-first" type of DM... I expect and pretty much demand my players to play that narrative choice all the time.  In order for this PC to have this Trait... the character better be almost always paranoid, untrusting of most people, really and truly expecting to get shivved all the time.  Basically if you want the narrative benefit when its useful... you have to accept the narrative penalties when it isn't.  And my players understand that.  That's what BIFTs get you... bonuses when the count, penalties when they are inconvenient.The other possibility beyond BIFTs though are when they have specific bonus features from things like their Background, or class feature or a Feat.  If a PC had an Urchin background and was in his/her home city... they absolutely would get to make Perception checks for ambushes because their Background Feature for Urchin specifically says they know their home turf backwards and forwards (moreso than another normal character.)  Likewise... if someone took the Alert feat, then I'd usually also give them Advantage on many Perception checks to spot ambushes because they spent a character resource specifically to be really good at something over and beyond another normal character.  And while the Alert feat already have game mechanics attributed to it... again because I run things from a narrative perspective first, I look at what the spirit of the feat is giving someone and applying it when it makes narrative sense, not just the three specific game mechanics it calls out (and those being the only things that the feat gives.)As far as Point #2 is concerned... that's just gaining Advantage for good tactics and planning over and above standard "Well, duh!" actions.  For the "looking out for ambush spots" in the example... a PC would actually do something to find those ambush spots.  Perhaps going on ahead through the underbrush rather than the road so that they discover the enemies before the party arrives, and then alerting the party to the ambush.  Or they went and found themselves an NPC who was intimately familiar with these roads and who already knew where the typical ambush spots were going to be.  Or someone made a specific choice for where they thought ambush spots were going to be and thus would be extra-vigilant in only those places (for example "If the road travels alongside or between cliff faces, I'll keep my eyes pealed for the ledges above someone might be hiding on.") then I'd give it to them (and probably also give them Disadvantage when trying to Perceive areas that were NOT that, as they were not expecting ambushes to happen at those times.) Basically... what makes sense narratively for who the characters are and what they are doing.  What makes sense in the story of the world, and NOT what "game mechanics" you had written down on your sheet.  Because to me... "game mechanics" are just set examples of the kind of things I CAN give and take from players to help change the story and make it less rote... and not hard and fast rules that ONLY do what they do to counteract or adjust other hard and fast rules.  I played that style of "set game rules to adjust other set game rules" D&D when I played 4E.  Which was great for playing THAT game... but I'm not playing 4E right now, I'm playing 5E.  And its a different game with a different style.  And so I embrace it as I play.</blockquote>

Verification