Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7583204" data-attributes="member: 97077">First, the player can't decide to &quot;roll to search for it.&quot; The DM's the only one who can decide if there's an ability check, after the player has described an action along those lines that has both an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure.So let's say there is no trap. The player describes the search. The DM then narrates the result that there is no trap found without a roll, perhaps noting the time it takes to search (and all that may entail).Let's say there is a trap. The player describes the search. The DM determines the outcome of the search is uncertain and (most importantly) that there is a meaningful consequence of failure. Meaning, that if the player fails the roll, something happens. The rules suggest &quot;progress combined with a setback&quot; as an potential adjudication for a failed check, which might mean for example that the trap is found, but the character's foot is on the pressure plate, setting up the next complication in the scene. &quot;What do you do?&quot;That is the key distinction here. Something must happen. If the player rolls poorly and the DM just says &quot;You don't find any traps,&quot; then you are right in thinking that the player may decide the roll carries with it some information that might be useful. If you have the character's effort end up putting him or her in a spot, then now the action moves forward without any of that &quot;metagame thinking&quot; influencing the remainder of the interaction.&quot;Metagaming&quot; as some call it is almost entirely the fault of the DM and can be prevented via the adjudication process (and by changing up monster stat blocks).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 7583204, member: 97077"] First, the player can't decide to "roll to search for it." The DM's the only one who can decide if there's an ability check, after the player has described an action along those lines that has both an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure. So let's say there is no trap. The player describes the search. The DM then narrates the result that there is no trap found without a roll, perhaps noting the time it takes to search (and all that may entail). Let's say there is a trap. The player describes the search. The DM determines the outcome of the search is uncertain and (most importantly) that there is a meaningful consequence of failure. Meaning, that if the player fails the roll, [I]something happens[/I]. The rules suggest "progress combined with a setback" as an potential adjudication for a failed check, which might mean for example that the trap is found, but the character's foot is on the pressure plate, setting up the next complication in the scene. "What do you do?" That is the key distinction here. [I]Something must happen[/I]. If the player rolls poorly and the DM just says "You don't find any traps," then you are right in thinking that the player may decide the roll carries with it some information that might be useful. If you have the character's effort end up putting him or her in a spot, then now the action moves forward without any of that "metagame thinking" influencing the remainder of the interaction. "Metagaming" as some call it is almost entirely the fault of the DM and can be prevented via the adjudication process (and by changing up monster stat blocks). [/QUOTE]

Verification