D&D 5E Ranger Stealth - If you are traveling alone, you can move stealthily at a normal pace.???

[Ovinomancer]

It doesn't matter if a player thinks something is observing their character or not.

I don't think you can say this, because it might very well matter. I can think of a few situations where it matters to game play quite a bit. Fir instance, if a player doesn't think there's any chance of observation, they may not take time to roleplay a careful sneak, instead preferring to gloss over it. If the player knows it may make a difference, they may choose to roleplay being careful, which can affect to outcomes in the game.

No, I think you can't say it doesn't matter in a general way.

That knowledge doesn't change how their character can possibly act,

True, if trivially so.

nor does that knowledge inherently prevent the player from being able to play their character in whatever way the table expects of them.

Again, a trivial statement. Pointing out that people can ignore behavioral cues isn't a solid argument against limiting certain cues you may feel negatively affect game experiences. It would be like me saying that just because I challenged your points here, you don't have to defend them. True, but not likely to be what happens.

 

[Vymair]

It's your DM's decision.

But they're wrong, in my opinion.

If you were a player at my table, I would only ask you to roll for stealth at the precise moment that your stealthiness was uncertain.

In other words, you could sneak all day without rolling dice. But when you wanted to sneak past a guard or something, then I would ask for a roll. No sooner.


-Brad

We play it similarly in my group. You declare you are moving stealthily, but you don't roll until you encounter something interesting. We use this logic for other things as well. For example, a warlock had the false life at will spell and although he declared he was casting it every time it wore off, he never rolled the hit points for until it mattered.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Fir instance, if a player doesn't think there's any chance of observation, they may not take time to roleplay a careful sneak, instead preferring to gloss over it. If the player knows it may make a difference, they may choose to roleplay being careful, which can affect to outcomes in the game.

Whether or not a player wants to role-play something or gloss over it comes down to player priorities - which may be exposed by, but are not actually changed by, whether you only call for a roll when it matters or call for a roll repeatedly.

No, I think you can't say it doesn't matter in a general way.

I can say it. In fact, I have said it. You can disagree, but you can't tell me I can't have my own opinion.

Pointing out that people can ignore behavioral cues isn't a solid argument against limiting certain cues you may feel negatively affect game experiences.

I'm not talking about ignoring behavioral cues - I'm talking about not needing those cues because the players are already behaving how they would like to.

Unless we assume the players won't play their characters in interesting and enjoyable ways unless the DM is constantly tricking them into it, which is not an assumption I ever make - call me an optimist, but I assume players are equally interested in engaging the game relative to the DM.

It would be like me saying that just because I challenged your points here, you don't have to defend them. True, but not likely to be what happens.

Whether or not it is likely, however, has nothing at all to do with you, or with the fact of my points being challenged. It has everything to do with me and what I want out of the forum-going experience - just like how a player responds to the call for a die roll is entirely about what they are seeking out of the game-play experience.

 

[seebs]

It doesn't matter if a player thinks something is observing their character or not. That knowledge doesn't change how their character can possibly act, nor does that knowledge inherently prevent the player from being able to play their character in whatever way the table expects of them.

Yeah. But players have more fun if they are not getting obvious metagame information that tells them whether or not there are observers. So I tend to use passive checks consistently, or active checks consistently, but not "you only roll when there's an observer".

 

[Ovinomancer]

Whether or not a player wants to role-play something or gloss over it comes down to player priorities - which may be exposed by, but are not actually changed by, whether you only call for a roll when it matters or call for a roll repeatedly.

I think you're completely, and incorrectly, discounting how behavioral cues work.

I can say it. In fact, I have said it. You can disagree, but you can't tell me I can't have my own opinion.

Clearly, and I wouldn't. I was speaking to the correctness of saying so, not to the ability to say it, as clearly, I would be immediately wrong.

As a further caveat, please, have all of the opinions you want. And, please, express them as you wish. If I feel they are incorrect, or if I disagree, I will do the same.

I'm not talking about ignoring behavioral cues - I'm talking about not needing those cues because the players are already behaving how they would like to.

That's... what?

So, if I do not ever tell my players that an enemy is attacking them and they are taking damage from that enemy until I mention that they are dead, these cues have no impact because the player will behave the same way if I tell them or don't? Clearly, we're having some kind of major failure to communicate.

Unless we assume the players won't play their characters in interesting and enjoyable ways unless the DM is constantly tricking them into it, which is not an assumption I ever make - call me an optimist, but I assume players are equally interested in engaging the game relative to the DM.

Ah, the old "I'm assuming people play the best way, and, if you disagree with me, you are assuming people play poorly" argument. Not buying this one, either.

The players will react to how the DM presents the game because that's how social interactions work. If the DM notices that certain behaviors are keyed to certain ways of presenting things and wishes to change the way he presents them to achieve a different set of behaviors, what's the issue? Why would we assume that the players are doing it the best of all possible ways but the DM is choosing to make bad decisions by adjusting his cues to elicit different behavior?

Whether or not it is likely, however, has nothing at all to do with you, or with the fact of my points being challenged. It has everything to do with me and what I want out of the forum-going experience - just like how a player responds to the call for a die roll is entirely about what they are seeking out of the game-play experience.

Are you actually saying that you'd have responded to me whether or not I quoted you and challenged your post? Or are you saying that, regardless of the content of my post where I quoted you, you'd have responded exactly the same way? Because I'm not seeing how you're avoiding the admission that your response is directly because of my quote and post, and that the nature and content of your response is not also directly because of my quote and post. It seems that you've responded because I quoted you, and your response is because of the content of mine. Sure, you get to choose that content, and when you respond, and on what platform, but it's impossible to say that you are not responding to and because of the cues I left in my post. This seems to completely refute your claim that asking for rolls cannot affect player behavior because players behave how they wish irregardless of such things.

Or is you point that a player choose how they respond to all stimulus, so it doesn't matter what they respond to, they're still picking their own responses? Because that's treating the trivial as profound -- of course people pick how they respond to cues (unless you're a 'no free will'er, but that's beside the point). The point was changing the information content of the cues so that players have more uncertainty when they choose.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Clearly, we're having some kind of major failure to communicate.

Yes, we clearly are.

You've misunderstood what appears to have been all but a single sentence of my post. I think we're just going to have to call it a day on this one - maybe someone else will share similar thoughts to mine in a way you understand. If so, I'll let you know that's what I was getting at. If not, oh well I guess.

Are you actually saying that you'd have responded to me whether or not I quoted you and challenged your post? Or are you saying that, regardless of the content of my post where I quoted you, you'd have responded exactly the same way? Because I'm not seeing how you're avoiding the admission that your response is directly because of my quote and post, and that the nature and content of your response is not also directly because of my quote and post. It seems that you've responded because I quoted you, and your response is because of the content of mine. Sure, you get to choose that content, and when you respond, and on what platform, but it's impossible to say that you are not responding to and because of the cues I left in my post. This seems to completely refute your claim that asking for rolls cannot affect player behavior because players behave how they wish irregardless of such things.

No to basically all of your questions. What I was saying is this: I was going to respond regardless of who engaged me, and regardless of the content of their post, because I'm on this forum because I want to engage with other RPG fans - and that's a thing about me; not a thing about you (or whoever else engages), nor a thing about what form that engagement takes.

 

[Bawylie]

Yeah. But players have more fun if they are not getting obvious metagame information that tells them whether or not there are observers. So I tend to use passive checks consistently, or active checks consistently, but not "you only roll when there's an observer".

My players stopped caring about that a long time ago. They no longer enjoy random rolls of no consequence.


-Brad

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Yeah. But players have more fun if they are not getting obvious metagame information that tells them whether or not there are observers.

My experience suggests no measurable difference in level of "fun" between games where unnecessary rolls are constantly made and in games where every roll is known to the players as being made for a reason (though not always a known or fully understood reason, since "roll stealth" just tells you something has a chance to perceive you in some way, not whether you'd prefer to be noticed or not noticed in this exact circumstance) - and especially not so noticeable a difference in fun levels to be able to attribute the difference specifically to that small part of a session that is made up of how we handle rolling stealth.

 

[discosoc]

Don't bother rolling stealth checks until the outcome is uncertain. I've actually had players that really want to roll them every time something changes, but they're really just fishing for high rolls because as soon as they get a good result they suddenly stop asking to make the check. So they do stuff like stealth around (ok check) then decided to "take a break" or something else to justify making another stealth check (much better!).

Seriously though, the checks are not needed unless the result is uncertain (something is there to detect you).

 

[Prakriti]

If you were a player at my table, I would only ask you to roll for stealth at the precise moment that your stealthiness was uncertain.

In other words, you could sneak all day without rolling dice. But when you wanted to sneak past a guard or something, then I would ask for a roll. No sooner.

You should always ask the player to roll Stealth when they are attempting to be stealthy, even when there are no creatures nearby to detect them. Otherwise, you are just telling the player when there are and when there are not creatures nearby.