Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="plisnithus8" data-source="post: 7923635" data-attributes="member: 6870553">It seems like you are only allowing for your own interpretation of the rules. A passive perception check says it "can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster."A PC can breathe without actively trying. A PC can make a Death Save without having the ability to make an action. I believe Passive Perception uses the word "passive" for a reason.Is there a chance I can spot something without actively trying to? Of course there is, happens all the time. Instincts and muscle memory are examples of how I would define passive. These are not something I do actively; they are subconscious, which in game terms I would define as passive.Again it feels like you are creating a framework for the game and dismissing other interpretations. Where in the game does it say that a player has total control of all of their thoughts and feelings? You may think that is the most fair way to play or have always played that way. The opening of the PHB says the DM describes the environment. To me that can mean the thoughts and feelings that a character has to react to. A magic fear effect has a mechanical way a player must deal with it. There is nothing to say that other emotions including non-magical ones can't be felt by PCs, ones mentioned by the DM, that the player has to decide what to do with. I'm not saying that this should happen all the time or even often. In fact, the DM making suggestions and improvising with a player works too.As for why I would want to describe how something feels (and I hope you aren't just being rhetorical), it's because I believe it is part of the game, part of the environment that a character would experience. The DM creates story hooks for the players -- why couldn't these be in the form of memories, emotions, and errant thoughts. I know some DMs ask for player input for NPC names or shoppes around town. That's great. Some groups would never do that, and that's fine too. Some groups might allow players to create part of the world that their PC could not control, such as feelings or stray thoughts, while others have players only control their actions. I believe there are memories and sensual reactions that are beyond control. Controlling those things, like helping co-creating creatures and places, could be considered a form of meta-gaming. Some people don't want any of that. But it can definitely add drama to a situation. It can add another form of conflict to a narrative. What is lost by never doing it is the potential for challenges that the players may not bring upon themselves, either for self-preservation or because they just didn't imagine these on their own.If you don't want to try something new, that's fine, but you don't need to ask me to keep questioning my motives for something that has been working really well.Also, if you want to say that I am misinterpreting your definition of the word "feelings," it would be helpful if you offered definitions.I keep mentioning how I do use both methods, applying them where effective.It seems like you could benefit from having more of an open mind on the subject.edit: BTW, I am enjoying the discussion on game theory and practice. It is helpful to me to think through these ideas.</blockquote>

Verification