Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7796266" data-attributes="member: 6880599">Placement and roll they are calling for is all you justify here. I do that too. Player "I move up to the front of the chest, can I roll investigation to check for hidden trap?" GM: "Sure" DC15 to identify the check, or what ever I had listed. No further description and not knowledge about traps. Players can take different approaches but I don't force players to have creative narrative and do require a role. Which they can call or I can. This may be more "abstract videogamey" but at the same time its faster and bogs down the turns less with unnecessarily over narrating everything and boring my player to death. If they want to do something they ask, if they can and I narrate only what is useful to their intended goal. More over my problem with this is forcing players to play there characters your way. You force them to narrate when they might not want to. Maybe they just want to open up the chest and move on. If they ask for more information because they want to make it more involved, I will give it to them. So instead of forcing their hand I invite a choice. We can end up in the same place on any chest with your method or mine but I prefer the player to choose how they want to play, even if they like "abstract videogamey", while the player next to them can choose to ask questions and play your way to an extent. However, success or failure will be determined by character stats not player description.I get that. Mine is more inline with his (at least for this) which is why I used that example. The thing is some players don't want to narrate every second and if you have ever watched critical role, you know his players have plenty of tension dispute playing this way instead of yours. I would also say that narrating what is required for players to identify a trap, means that every trap is foreshadowed and not a surprise or you narrate some rooms and halls like they are and waste a lot of time on pointless narrative.... That would boar me to death... But if your table is happy, I am not saying you are wrong. I am just saying I don't play that way because my players and myself don't like the narrative over kill. If your asking about what I am dong to understand it, that is a requirement and we are the same page, but when you to how you are doing that you shift into a different style of play the puts infuses on forced narrative.... I can't stand that.I am going to the chest, I am going to check if for traps, if it is trapped I will try do disarm it with my thieves tools..vsP: I am going to the chest. GM: how do you go to the chest? P:... I walk.... GM: ok when you check for traps, what do you do? P: ...I look at it and poke things, while listening for any strange noise and looking for strange movements" GM: "you find that you lift a little and there is a wire attached" P: … I cut it with the thieves tools" GM: "the wire is tight and you think cutting the wire will trigger the trap.... blah blah blah. ..Version two here might be enjoyed by some people but others just want to open the disarm the chest and move on. Your forcing every player to choose #2 because YOU like it, requiring them to struggle through narration they might not want. If they ask for it, "what does the trap look like?" then they are inviting this. If they just say "can I roll thieves tools' to disarm it?" they asking not to spend the next 10 minutes narrating a single trap. As point in case, we have seen both happen on critical role. While this is happening the other players are setting there board, and that's when your party Barbarian runs past your party rogue and smashes the chest to pieces because the player of the barbarian is board and had enough. Which, could be bad for the rogue, but I get it. So I might have some chests easily smash able with small light damage AoE effects and I might have a few iron chests, so the barbarian has to let the rogue play it out if that's what the rogue wants to do. Alternatively the rogue might just want to roll for thieves too as well and it be a more than the rogue bargained for when they asked "what does the trap look like?". Narrating a single trap for 10 mins while the rest of the party twiddling their thumbs can also be boring. Traps can still be useful even if they are not the focal point. The tension created by a trip which is disarmed with a simple test might come from pursuers or guards near by. If we are honest, unless traps are lethal they don't generally as suspense by themselves. This because the don't typically have an out come other than success or failure, or a restraint that applies a pressure on the player. However, they add tension bombs in movies by putting them on a timer. The D&D equivalent of that is a coming patrol or wandering monster. If the out come of failing the check is not death then tension is created by failure alerting the guards with the noise. If there is no potential instant death, no alerting of additional enemies, and no out come I which to avoid other than disarming the trap... there is not suspense using your method or mine and the trap is only useful for establishing a setting. In that case over narrating it is not adding anything but the time it takes up in the session. … or... another way to say that is you add exhaustive levels of narration that put your players to sleep while you tell stories and they wait to actually make a decision> Then when they make a decision you "foreshadow" aka narrate more to tell them how to do the task the way they want or they are punished with automatic failure. ...or... a game of simon says, where the GM is constantly saying "ah, you didn't say..." got you moments because the GM requires them narrate everything which breaks down into players trying to narrate every 5ft to avoid being faulted for not stating a specific narration. Instead of them just calling for non-specific roll or allowing them to passively check.Like I have said, I have seen this style of play go very very wrong and devolve into a GM guiding all players through narration, basically making the game "GM story time" and not a group playing D&D together. I am not saying this can't be done right. I am just saying I have seen it go very very wrong. If you are holding the line, that's good on you. I don't even want to go near it because I have some bad experiences being pushed over it by some GMs.Sounds like a lot of GM story time and I would worry that I am leading my players to follow my choices for their characters by continually pointing out and allowing them to reconsider. The result of this, is that they know you are having them reconsider because its not how you would do it and since you control the world the world will agree with you that is a bad idea. I agree that if a player looks for and takes cover they can avoid or lower the DC of the save, but I don't have to forshadow with my method, so its up to them to ask if they spot the trap and they are preparing to disarm it while if they don't spot the trap, we establish a marching order for theater of the mind with ranges and on maps I will have them move up to a point, then describe an event, which could be a trap they just trigger or a guard walking out a door. Their positions are set so I just tell them who is effected or sees the guard based on line of sight and proximity. Speeding up the game can be good and bad. Your narrating the game a lot in trade for automatic checks. So your slowing down the game for the GMs turn and bypassing the players turns as quickly as possible. I cut narrative, and give more time to players actions following through with each of there rolls. I can't say which is better for any group, but I prefer my way.I adjust the check but compare it to the passives of the character sheet so I am still using the character. Your ignoring the character and the check for the player. A passive skill completing the check is very different than awarding or failing a check on players description because the player did make a character choice in choosing the skills, feats, etc, that make there character. So I am still honoring character choices and skills not player skills. If the DC is below the passive of a PC walking buy, I could agree, however, a PC with a -1 dex bonus, in plate for disadvantage, and not proficient stealth, would have a passive -6 and would have to roll or that character might still manage to trigger the DC5 (default 10 -5 disadvantage) passive perception of drunk or sleeping guard. I might hand wave this if its not important, but at the same time it could make for an interesting moment. So letting a player call for stealth to sneak by … adds tension... something have asked for multiple times, but is easily successful or perhaps a funny encounter they might remember... I will let the dice and character sheets decide. I might not have called for a roll, but if a player asks because they are not sure they can sneak by … its getting rolled. That is playing D&D to me.I am using character stats and you are using players skills of description. Its very different. A smart player plays a dumb character in your world the PC is still smart and cleaver dispite the dump stat. Where a dumb player playing a smart cleaver character is dumb despite maxed out at attributes and expertise in the skill.... If your players are playing characters close to themselves its not an issue but when they step away from that you void that decision by ignoring there characters stats.Yes. It might not go off if they didn't arm it right. They might blow the chest off the stand but the chest survive. Kind of like the members of critical role vs doors. … Those are great moments I would not give up. your countering your "gains" in efficiacnty with tons of narration. They can in my game too, but in my game they don't have to, They have to roll using there stats. Which is actually 2-3 seconds for a roll and some math vs 10 minutes of interpretive discussion, so way faster as a rule. The need to make the roll so its not based on the player but the players character which they created for this purpose and which they are literally asking to use any time they call for a roll … which always uses those characters stats..... This whole discussion boils down to "If a character asks to use there character, why would you deny them that?"</blockquote>

Verification