Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaculata" data-source="post: 7502826" data-attributes="member: 6801286">Thanks for the questions as well. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I think you'll find cases where the DM wants something to 'happen' in almost any D&D campaign. But I think where I differ is how I deal with it. I've seen plenty of DM's try to force something upon the players by having them all roll perception checks until someone succeeds. My approach is to just not do that. Players roll only when they take an action. If I feel something needs to happen plotwise, or the players need to discover something, I just tell them. I noticed this difference in yesterday's session, in which I was a player and not the DM. The DM had all of us make perception checks, because he obviously wanted to move the plot forward. Obviously someone is going to succeed at the check, and so the DM tells that player what they learn. But why even have these checks then? Why not either straight up tell the players what you want them to know, or wait until one player decides to investigate?But you could still have that if only one player made a roll. Why force a roll on every player? Why not wait till one player takes an action first? I take issue with the idea of a DM presuming an action on the part of the player, and setting up a possibility for failure for something the players did not choose to do at all.</blockquote>

Verification