Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Should players be aware of their own high and low rolls?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oofta" data-source="post: 8826499" data-attributes="member: 6801845"><p>Didn't have a chance to get back to this yesterday. Lot's and lots of posts since then veering into metagame territory instead of the topic but here goes ...</p><p></p><p>I did bypass some of the double checking what others were doing for brevity, I assume whoever is running the rogue is either on their own for some reason or discussed options with the group after the open lock failed.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So it's just the description of inspecting? No check? This is something that I dislike, using player skill which tends to end up being "knowing what the DM wants to hear" over PC skill. Someone who is more naturally eloquent or simply knows the DM better will be more likely to succeed. More below.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No clue what a time pool is. Some house rule borrowed from another game? [edit: house rule explained pages ago]</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We will shortcut stuff because the players trust me to not "gotcha". If inspecting something is potentially dangerous we'll go into details. Vast majority of time it's unnecessary filler to add extra detail that doesn't add anything for us so "I investigate" is good enough. I assume the PC knows how to do their job, the player does not need to know. </p><p></p><p>The discussion over assuming the PC is the competent one vs player descriptive skill is a divide as old as the game. I remember back in ye olden days having this discussion, that my PC knows how to search the door for traps and what to look for without triggering the trap. I, as a player, do not. So been there, done that, long ago. I just ask for an investigation check and I, or the player, may embellish at times depending on if it's interesting. There could be times when it's more complex than a simple roll. That's fairly rare because traps and whatnot are not generally a focus of my game.</p><p></p><p>Next is the issue I have with telling the player "it's a DC 20". As I said, that takes me out of the descriptive narrative. It also gives out too much info. Let's say the lock is designed to look like a standard commoner's lock. The equivalent of the basic masterlock you get at the hardware store so it should be easy (DC 15). But the shed is really owned by the local crime lord so it's a higher quality lock disguised to look like a cheap one and it's hard (DC 20). Maybe the investigation check could have detected this, maybe not since the mechanism will not be open to visual inspection.</p><p></p><p>Point is that sometimes until you try something you don't know. I have no idea how many times I've started something that I thought would be an easy task that was much more difficult once I started. I want the game to reflect that and sometimes it does, hence "it looks easy" becomes "when you attempt ___ it's much more difficult than it looks". That cliff that looks like it has plenty of handholds? Turns out the rock 10 feet up is extremely fragile making the climb more difficult. Or the light was such that you couldn't see the handholds. </p><p></p><p>People would be frustrated if I told them it looked like a DC 15 but instead it was a 20. In some cases, there's simply not enough information to make an educated guess and I will tell them that they simply can't tell. How do you know how hard it is to dig a hole for a post until you try? I mean if your nephew gave you a couple of "easy set" posts that you just screw into the ground and they put them in easily in 5 minutes and <em>you </em>try but then there's rocks every 2-4 inches you have to dig out by hand? Something that should have been simple ends up taking close to an hour and then it doesn't really work and you have to go back next year with the quickcrete and ... wait I'm digressing again. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /></p><p></p><p>Point is that sometimes you can tell how difficult something is, sometimes you can't, sometimes you make a guess and it's wrong. Absolute certainty before attempting a task is not a given unless it's a simple repetitive task.</p><p></p><p>In addition, setting the scene is not generally something I would "reset" unless something changes. As I said in my description, I would just let the player tell me what they thought a reasonable time to try was and go with that unless something external changes. My DMing just isn't that formal.</p><p></p><p>[HR][/HR]</p><p></p><p>Last, but not least, everything you describe is things I've experience, just not all at the same time. Can you <em>please</em> stop talking about how I might like it if I tried it and accept that after playing for decades I've experienced most options?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oofta, post: 8826499, member: 6801845"] Didn't have a chance to get back to this yesterday. Lot's and lots of posts since then veering into metagame territory instead of the topic but here goes ... I did bypass some of the double checking what others were doing for brevity, I assume whoever is running the rogue is either on their own for some reason or discussed options with the group after the open lock failed. So it's just the description of inspecting? No check? This is something that I dislike, using player skill which tends to end up being "knowing what the DM wants to hear" over PC skill. Someone who is more naturally eloquent or simply knows the DM better will be more likely to succeed. More below. No clue what a time pool is. Some house rule borrowed from another game? [edit: house rule explained pages ago] We will shortcut stuff because the players trust me to not "gotcha". If inspecting something is potentially dangerous we'll go into details. Vast majority of time it's unnecessary filler to add extra detail that doesn't add anything for us so "I investigate" is good enough. I assume the PC knows how to do their job, the player does not need to know. The discussion over assuming the PC is the competent one vs player descriptive skill is a divide as old as the game. I remember back in ye olden days having this discussion, that my PC knows how to search the door for traps and what to look for without triggering the trap. I, as a player, do not. So been there, done that, long ago. I just ask for an investigation check and I, or the player, may embellish at times depending on if it's interesting. There could be times when it's more complex than a simple roll. That's fairly rare because traps and whatnot are not generally a focus of my game. Next is the issue I have with telling the player "it's a DC 20". As I said, that takes me out of the descriptive narrative. It also gives out too much info. Let's say the lock is designed to look like a standard commoner's lock. The equivalent of the basic masterlock you get at the hardware store so it should be easy (DC 15). But the shed is really owned by the local crime lord so it's a higher quality lock disguised to look like a cheap one and it's hard (DC 20). Maybe the investigation check could have detected this, maybe not since the mechanism will not be open to visual inspection. Point is that sometimes until you try something you don't know. I have no idea how many times I've started something that I thought would be an easy task that was much more difficult once I started. I want the game to reflect that and sometimes it does, hence "it looks easy" becomes "when you attempt ___ it's much more difficult than it looks". That cliff that looks like it has plenty of handholds? Turns out the rock 10 feet up is extremely fragile making the climb more difficult. Or the light was such that you couldn't see the handholds. People would be frustrated if I told them it looked like a DC 15 but instead it was a 20. In some cases, there's simply not enough information to make an educated guess and I will tell them that they simply can't tell. How do you know how hard it is to dig a hole for a post until you try? I mean if your nephew gave you a couple of "easy set" posts that you just screw into the ground and they put them in easily in 5 minutes and [I]you [/I]try but then there's rocks every 2-4 inches you have to dig out by hand? Something that should have been simple ends up taking close to an hour and then it doesn't really work and you have to go back next year with the quickcrete and ... wait I'm digressing again. :confused: Point is that sometimes you can tell how difficult something is, sometimes you can't, sometimes you make a guess and it's wrong. Absolute certainty before attempting a task is not a given unless it's a simple repetitive task. In addition, setting the scene is not generally something I would "reset" unless something changes. As I said in my description, I would just let the player tell me what they thought a reasonable time to try was and go with that unless something external changes. My DMing just isn't that formal. [HR][/HR] Last, but not least, everything you describe is things I've experience, just not all at the same time. Can you [I]please[/I] stop talking about how I might like it if I tried it and accept that after playing for decades I've experienced most options? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Should players be aware of their own high and low rolls?
Top