Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7795576" data-attributes="member: 6880599">The difference is a little subtle which is why I keep saying that if your table I happy. Don't stress it. However we I set up a following order and distance to stablish safeties, the I assume passives unless stated. Players would only get for warning from a hidden trap if a member of the party has high enough passive persuasion and/or investigation. Usually the first trap they run across in a dungeon etc, is easy to spot to inform players that this dungeon has traps. Traps are also usually securing something, players are prone to check doors and chests before opening them, and if they see shiny valuables in a room with gold head on a pedestal... they tend to be suspicious of a trap. That said, they will likely call for a check at those times without me asking. If there is trap on a pre-made dungeon in the middle of the hall and they would fail, I would call for a check as GM to give them a chance to spot it. Typically if I call it they don't add description and just roll. I describe the effect and we move on. If they call for check and are suspicious, I let them call it, if there is not trap and the rolled low... they are cautious but still moved forward with no idea if the trap is there and they rolled low or if there is no trap. If they just tried to open the door/chest on the other hand, I would call for roll if it is trapped or just open it if its is not. To that end, them calling roles creates more suspense. Automatic failures are not a thing in my game, but if they said they were afraid they failed a perception/investigation check to spot a trap and put the fighters shield in front of them I might give them advantage on the save for triggering the trap, while if it was not trapped the door would just open. 1. If it matters, they get a charcter skill role. 2. Descriptions and cleaver role play and good descriptions only ever provide bonuses never deficits. 3. I only auto succeed a test if the DC is reduce below there passive skill, but never auto fail.Telegraphing everything can do something similar, but it requires I never forget a single word or detail and describe everything (which I do constantly). There would be no such thing as a hidden trap (because they are always foreshadowed). Auto success or failures would be based off players (not player characters) deciphering what I am trying to hint at and what description of events would be sufficient to ME (subjectively) to allow them to succeed. A preset DC doesn't care how good a player is at guessing what I mean, expressing what they mean, or them understanding a characters skill sufficiently to explain it as a player.  I do not require players running as deckers to know how to hack to play a decker in shadowrun or players who choose to play rogues to know how to disarm traps in D&D to be able to explain in detail how to disable traps in the real world. I also don't require players who want to play Bards to have to audition and perform performance checks grading it on how much I like the show.  TO ME these are all the same thing... however if your playing D&D with your band group and you all want to play bards requiring them to actually play instruments IRL, your party might love it.... so I am not saying its wrong. I am saying I have seen these subjective D&D calls based on GMs approval of Player descriptions instead of character stats.... go very badly.  So I personally avoid them my requiring roles and as a result I don't care if I call them or the player calls for roles using their characters stats. In fact I actively encourage it because them calling for a check on a door lets me hide the check value of the check, where if I call for the check they know something is up and in many cases it requires me to warn the out come of the roll to get them to second guess decisions. If they call for the check the decision was made and player agency is preserved even if its a bad idea.</blockquote>

Verification