D&D 5E Rolling Without a Chance of Failure (I love it)

[Charlaquin]

I think the easiest solution is to not be a gotcha DM. There are times when I'll let people know something is risky, if they fail it could be hazardous to their health.

But what I won't do is force them to play pin the tail on the DM's expected correct course of action.

Me either!

 

[Charlaquin]

"I check the drawer for traps" and "I check the knob for traps" are functionally the same, except the latter is more gotcha, because you won't find the trap on the rest of the drawer.

Neither of those tell me what your character is actually doing.

 

[Maxperson]

Neither of those tell me what your character is actually doing.

Yes it does. Checking for traps is clearly what the character is actually doing. The more detail you demand, the more likely there will be a gotcha moment where they miss the actual trap, because the details provided don't find it.

 

[iserith]

Yes it does. Checking for traps is clearly what the character is actually doing. The more detail you demand, the more likely there will be a gotcha moment where they miss the actual trap, because the details provided don't find it.

You've already agreed upthread that some traps might be found visually and others physically. So let's not go backward, eh?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yes it does. Checking for traps is clearly what the character is actually doing. The more detail you demand, the more likely there will be a gotcha moment where they miss the actual trap, because the details provided don't find it.

You seem to not be hearing them. They aren't requiring specific descriptions of the step by step SOP of checking for traps, they require something like "I examine the thing visually first, to see if I can spot any traps or other devices" or "I'm not too worried about it so I just pull out my knife and start checking physically for mechanisms, with a very light touch."

You're inventing the idea of @Charlaquin requiring that they go into some absurdly specific step by step thesis on trapfinding.

 

[Charlaquin]

You seem to not be hearing them. They aren't requiring specific descriptions of the step by step SOP of checking for traps, they require something like "I examine the thing visually first, to see if I can spot any traps or other devices" or "I'm not too worried about it so I just pull out my knife and start checking physically for mechanisms, with a very light touch."

You're inventing the idea of @Charlaquin requiring that they go into some absurdly specific step by step thesis on trapfinding.

Thank you! I’m glad someone who doesn’t use the same approach I do actually gets it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Neither of those tell me what your character is actually doing.

I do kinda disagree with this, but IMO checking for traps is a bad example. To me, "I check the door for traps" simply means that they are examining it visually, and then physically in they see nothing, being very careful about the process.

But, I don't think the level of specificity you require is unreasonable. It's just more than I would expect in that specific instance.

I do ask people what their magic, fighting, athletic movements, etc, look like, but it's a general question asked early on and then referenced as the campaigns moves on, so I might ask the rogue how their trapfinder tends to play out, what their SOPs are, early on, and encourage description as the campaign goes on, but I don't need specifics every time.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Thank you! I’m glad someone who doesn’t use the same approach I do actually gets it.

Yeah sometimes I wonder how different our games even are, compared to how different they seem when we are discussing things we disagree on, but I can't stand it when people use hyperbole to such an extreme that they're outright claiming things completely different from what was said.

"How do you look for traps?" is not "I need a full breakdown of your step by step process so I can find my opportunity to murder your PC with a gotcha".

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes it does. Checking for traps is clearly what the character is actually doing.

No, it doesn’t. It tells me what you’re trying to accomplish. But the word “check” is too vague for me to be able to visualize the action that’s supposed to be occurring on the fiction. Is your character just looking at the drawer? Sliding a knife along the seam? Jiggling the handle? In what way is your character interacting with the drawer that might allow them to determine the presence or absence of traps?

The more detail you demand, the more likely there will be a gotcha moment where they miss the actual trap, because the details provided don't find it.

I don’t demand detail, I demand clarity.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah sometimes I wonder how different our games even are, compared to how different they seem when we are discussing things we disagree on,

The impression I get is that there are ways in which our games are pretty similar, but there are also ways in which they’re quite different; most notably I think the focus of the gameplay is probably pretty different. Your games sound more like how I would run 4e. And I think they would be a lot of fun to play in.

but I can't stand it when people use hyperbole to such an extreme that they're outright claiming things completely different from what was said.

"How do you look for traps?" is not "I need a full breakdown of your step by step process so I can find my opportunity to murder your PC with a gotcha".

Agreed. It’s very frustrating.