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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6854331" data-attributes="member: 6680772">I saw the quotes, but they aren't really applicable to the situation, for a number of reasons.  1) My old group and I came up with 1st edition AD&D.  The other players I'm talking about generally have not.  Nevertheless, there's a tendency for my old group to say, "I do X," and wait expectantly for my ruling, and for the newer groups to say "I do X, (roll), a 17" before I can say anything.  2) My point is not merely about the narrow example of a perception check, but also includes various skill checks, such as Athletics, Acrobatics, Intimidation, and Persuasion.  This can be particularly disconcerting because they roll so early, sometimes I have no particular DC set ahead of time, and am forced to decide whether they made it or not, rather than allow the dice to decide.  And 3) There's absolutely nothing unusual about attempting to perceive something and expecting that it will be resolved with a roll.  There is something unusual, IMO, with attempting to perceive something and rolling unilaterally.  Particularly since in the examples you quoted, it's the DM who rolls perception related checks, so that the player doesn't know whether there is really anything there, or if they failed the roll.  Hence Gygax's injunction (to the DM) to roll anyway, even if such a roll is not needed.The point of the Carr quotes is to indicate that my stance, as DM, is not adversarial with regards to the players, and that I don't play "Gotcha!" games.  My lament in this case is that my goal is to assist the players by providing the information that is available to them.  But it seems that many players do not expect such information come without passing through the crucible of a die roll.  Or, alternatively, that a roll of the die is enough to indicate that they have it.  I would spare them the frustration of rolling and failing, or of rolling high to no effect (because there was no effect to be found), or of making unnecessary rolls in general.  If they engaged with me, rather than purely mechanical resolutions, we could take the game to new heights, enhanced by die rolls rather than limited by them.That's actually quite orthogonal to the issue.  It's more DM-based resolution over mechanically-based resolution that I'm talking about.  The former may include fictional positioning, but that is not the whole of it.  As in the B/X example I noted.  If the player merely expressed his intentions to me, the DM, then there would be times when they would be resolved with fictional positioning, and others when it was resolved by various kinds of mechanical resolution.  What I offer is greater possibilities, a game that utilizes multiple approaches to resolution, tailored to the situation.  But that player preferred to rely on that single mechanical resolution.It's not that I don't understand why some players want to play that way.  For whatever reason, be that previous bad experiences, or learning D&D through a particular edition, or even just innate preference, they want a clear sense of agency, and points of hard contact where they interact with the game.  That is why I try not to force my style on players who don't want it, and I force down the reflexive annoyance that flares when a player rolls unilaterally.  I just don't feel my games with those players have reached the heights of the games I where I can use that style.  When the players engage with me, I'm more engaged with them, and the game, and we feed off each other.I've found this to be true from the opposite side, as well.  As I like to say, "Say 'Yes,'" doesn't apply just to GMs.</blockquote>

Verification