| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1cjblaney0Apr 29, 2015 8:20:34 | Hi all, Thanks in advance for any responses, just had a few questions on Perception -
1. One of our members has passive perception of 20, I don’t want her to simply spot every trap, secret door or incoming ambush right away, at the same time I don't want to diminish the value of her taking that that feat in the first place. I'm a relatively new DM, so would appreciate any advice or thoughts on what others do in this situation.
2. Everytime we enter a room, everyone just automatically does a perception check in hopes of finding a hidden item, monster etc. I can see why they do this, but it feels incredibly redundant and is just becoming kind of a nuisance. Anyone have any ideas on how to avoid this? Ideally, I don’t want to reveal every potential secret in the room right away if I do away with the need for constant perception checks, and I don't want my group to feel like they may miss something if they don’t all roll perception checks in every room they visit.
Thanks all |
| #2iserithApr 29, 2015 8:38:23 | 1. Based on my reading of the rules - and somewhat in opposition to others, including Mike Mearls - passive Perception is not an "always-on radar." You're either on alert for hidden threats or you're not. A passive check represents the average result of a task with an uncertain outcome performed repeatedly. Thus, if you're going to be the guy or gal who detects the hidden maps and monsters, you're not going to see the secret doors. If you want to look for secret doors instead, you may not be alert to hidden dangers. This creates a tradeoff and meaningful decision for players without diminishing the investment in character generation/advancement. You can have your PP 20, but if you took that to never be surprised, then you better be keeping watch at all times and send someone else to poke around for secret doors or treasure.
2. Per the rules, players do NOT get to decide to make checks - they may only describe what they want to do. It's the DM who asks for checks if and when the player describes an action for his or her character that has an uncertain outcome. What you should be doing as DM is describing the environment in a pithy and engaging way then ask, "What do you do?" When the players describe in fictional terms what they do, you narrate the outcome. If you're not sure of the outcome, ask for a check. If a player asks to make a check, tell the player, "Describe what you want to do only by making your goal and approach clear, then I'll tell you if you need to make a check." If you think about it, asking to make a check isn't very smart play since you're just asking for a chance to fail. Instead, the smart move is to describe an action that we believe has a certain chance of success and then see what the DM says. |
| #3reddaemonApr 29, 2015 8:43:09 | You could have a few instances where something may not be trapped but instead may just be a structural weakness causing a floor to cave in under you, or a heavy iron door to fall on you when you open it. You could rule that it is only possible to notice by inspecting it closely with an investigation check instead of a perception check. But also make sure there are traps for the character to spot as well to give them a sense of accomplishment. For example your party kills an evil wizard and just as the party's wizard is about to open their new spellbook, this character perceives a rune on the cover of the book that appears to be a trap. They can save the wizard from incinerating his new spellbook due to their increased awareness. |
| #4Rya.ReisenderApr 29, 2015 9:53:30 | @iserith Huh? But the purpose of passive perception in the first place is to remove the tedium of players to constantly having to state that they are looking out for enemies and traps. So I totally see it as an "always on" state. But yeah if you are doing something else you can't do perception at the same time.
@cjblaney0 There are several factors you should consider:
1. When traveling you have have a marching order. Only characters on the front and characters on the rear can look out for traps and enemies. The characters front can only check for traps and enemies in front of them. The rear can watch out for attacks from behind. The marching order is thus quite relevant. Even if the passive perception is high enough, if you are front and the enemies attack from behind, you won't detect them. Likewise if you are guarding the rear and a trap is on the road.
2. Passive perception of 20 isn't enough to see everything. Even a simple goblin can still hide from you with a bit of luck (Stealth+6). There aren't many traps with DC higher than 20, though. But even if you see a trap, it doesn't mean you can... avoid or disarm it. Nor will you be able to prevent your team mates to avoid every trap. I can only speak for my own group, but everybody there has its own head and they won't wait for that one character with 20 PP to check every little corner while they idle around. One character stepping on a trap switch can even result in the PP 20 character being hurt, depending on the trap.
3. There are a lot situations where PP gets penalized or does not apply. Like when you have to concentrate on another task. When traveling on fast pace / running, PP gets reduced by 5. So if you are running from an enemy for example you might still step right into a DC 16 trap, even when taking the lead. |
| #5iserithApr 29, 2015 9:58:28 |
|
| #6Rya.ReisenderApr 29, 2015 10:07:42 | Forgot to reply to the second part:
|
| #7cjblaney0Apr 29, 2015 10:13:29 | Thanks for all this to everyone who responded. Very helpful in moving forward. |
| #8AaronOfBarbariaApr 29, 2015 10:16:09 |
|
| #9iserithApr 29, 2015 10:44:42 | Here's a helpful way of thinking about it. Say you have a chamber and there is indeed a hidden item in a niche in the wall. You describe the scene in a pithy fashion and ask "What do you do?" Now think of what the players describe they want to do in terms of trade-offs.
Action: Everyone searches the room generally and quickly. Adjudication: Uncertain outcome. Group Perception check.
Action: One person searches the room specifically and quickly. Adjudication: Certain outcome - success (no roll), if the player specifically searched the niche in the wall. Certain outcome - failure (no roll), if the player specifically searched anywhere but the niche.
Action: Everyone or one person searches the room thoroughly. Adjudication: Uncertain outcome. Use passive Perception values. Cost for doing this is time.
Action: Everyone or one person searches the room exhaustively. Adjudication: Certain outcome - success (no roll). Cost for doing this is a lot of time, ten times as much as it would take to search it thoroughly.
As you can see, time is the cost, so you have to make that sting. An easy way to do this is to make checks for wandering monsters every X minutes or hours. The more time they spend on a thing, the greater the chance they run afoul of some monster. Another way is to create a countdown such as Princess Lilac being sacrificed at midnight unless they find her. The more time they spend, the greater the chance they fail their mission. Making time matter creates a meaningful choice for the players.
Finally, consider how you narrate the result of the adventurers' action after a failed check and think about using "progress combined with a setback" rather than outright failure. For example, a failed Perception check (passive or otherwise) might mean that the characters find the hidden item in the niche, but in the doing they make noise that draws unwanted attention. Or they end up taking more time than they wanted to. Or it reveals an unwelcome truth. Or whatever. It's when a player rolls low, finds nothing, then wonders if they can try again. You can beat that by having a failed check mean success at a cost. |
| #10cjblaney0Apr 29, 2015 12:16:08 |
|
| #11QwertyAzertyApr 29, 2015 12:20:16 | Passive check are the average result you get when you repeat the search again and again and again etc...
So if the character says: I look for trap in this hall) instead of asking him to roll every 5ft (which would greatly slow down the game), or asking him to roll when he face the trap (telling the player there is a trap even if he roll too low for his character to find it) you give the player it's passive check instead.
Remember unless your a ranger in your favorite environment, you go at half speed to look while moving. If you also move stealthly you then go at quarter speed.
So yes if your player have all the time in the world, and are willing to advance at 7.5 ft per round, then let the player use the passive check. If they want to move at 15ft, then they make noise, they might find all the trap and secret door, but the monster will find them. If they are in a hurry and want to move the full 30ft speed, then they cannot use there passive since they are NOT taking the time to look for it. |
| #12TrueManiekApr 29, 2015 23:41:52 | Passive Perception 20 seems to me like the player wants his/her character to see and hear everything – that’s the tradeoff, he invested in wisdom, he invested in feat and probably something else.
I’m saying that, because I can see player being upset that he stumbled into trap while searching the room for treasure “Come one, I’ve got +10 to perception, I should have seen it miles away, I can both look for a treasure and spot a trap right?”
PS: Back in my old gaming days, perception rolls were the ones being most rolled (even more then attack ones) |
| (Reply to #6)bawylie |
|
| #14DemoMonkeyApr 30, 2015 7:57:21 | I disagree with Bawylie. Giving the players false or no information is a useful tool, just applied with a light hand.
Iserith is correct that the players do not decide when rolls are made, the DM does.
You (the DM) set the DC's for perception checks. It is perfectly valid to set the DC based on the search attempted. Ex: "The secret door is extremely well hidden. The DC to spot the secret door just by passing by is 25. The DC to spot it if the players are moving at a slow pace and actively searching the wall as they go is 20. The DC if the players know the location because they saw someone go through it or have followed tracks there is 10."
You don't need (or want) to penalize the player with the high PP character for their choices just to preserve mystery and surprises in your game; you just need to be a little more creative in your threats. Remember, just because the characters passive perception notices SOMETHING doesn't mean they know how to interperet it. "Keeneyes the elf spots diagonal scrape marks on the stone floor, and smells the faint scent of cinnamon. What does he do?". |
| #15bawylieApr 30, 2015 9:39:53 | Giving the players false information, or no information ignores how that affects the players' relationship to the DM.
You might like it on the DM side of the screen. But it has severely negative externalities. 1.) It abrogates trust. Players can no longer count on reliable or honest info from the DM. And that's really the entire game. BC even if they suspect something isn't right, players' attempts to confirm or refute their suspicions Are filtered through the same source, the DM, who has already proven untrustworthy. 2.) It creates a new layer of meta-game wherein players must assess whether or not the DM is truthful. This is distinct from assessing whether or not your character can trust an NPC. This is a person, probably a friend, who is manipulating you over a game. This is crap on the receiving end. 3.) It impedes play. If you give no information, essentially nothing happens. If you lie, and they find out, the players will take additional steps to verify the info presented, playing the meta-game of "do you trust the DM?"
Therefore, you must never lie to your players or present false information. You shouldn't (versus must never) give no information. The best practice, by far, is to faithfully and honestly describe the circumstances facing the players.
This necessarily involves careful choice of words. For instance a player wants to know whether or not an NPC he's talking to is lying. The DM asks for an insight check & the player fails. The NPC is in fact lying. The DM responds, "You consider the NPC for a moment, but sense no deceit." This is different and better than "he's telling the truth," which you know for a fact he is not. You could also say "You find no reason to mistrust this person," or "He appears forthright to you." These statements faithfully describe the situation without lying.
Now you find yourself with a PC who has a 20 in passive perception. This isn't manifestly different than a PC with 20 AC, is it? I use passive perception as a sort of defense value against baddies' stealth attempts. When a PC searches a room, I ask for a check (usually). For traps, hazards, baddies, etc, unless the PCs are searching for them (which requires a check), I'll roll a stealth check against the players' passive perception. Just as I would roll an attack vs AC.
I don't treat PP as an active radar. Just as I don't treat AC as an always active force field. If you're unaware or unable to defend yourself, you don't get the benefit of defense. |
| #16Rya.ReisenderApr 30, 2015 11:20:16 | Players are not to try to figure out if the DM is lying to them or not. Players are to play their character by what their character knows. If a player totally knows that there is poison in a bottle, but I tell him as DM he thinks it's a healing potion, then he must act as if he thinks it's a healing potion. |
| (Reply to #16)bawylie |
|
| (Reply to #16)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #19DemoMonkeyApr 30, 2015 12:08:32 | No one is advocating lying to the players in this thread Bawylie. (I actually think it's ok, as long as the DM never ever admits under any circumstance to having done it. And I have never done it myself of course. But that's not germane to this discussion.)
What is being said is that it is appropriate to give players informatiion their characters would know, even if that information is wrong, probably because of a botched roll or active deception on another PC or NPCs part.
And that it is appropriate to obfuscate information when the omission of obfuscation itself provides information the characters wouldn't have. (The classic "call for a perception roll when there is nothing there" gambit, so that players cannot automatically assume something is up when you call for a roll, as an example).
In your example, I agree it's absolutely fine to tell the player his/her character *thinks* the potion is a Healing potion; provided you ALWAYS describe identifying potions as "You THINK it's an XYZ potion", regardless of whether it is or it isn't.
The precedent of "I will always tell you what your character thinks is true, not necessarily what is true" needs to be set early if you want to run a "Think as your character would think" style of game. Not everyone does of course, which is why (as I said earlier) it's a useful tool in the right situations. |
| #20iserithApr 30, 2015 12:20:55 | DM: There are a number of broken glass bottles and stained pages around the drow sorcerer's overturned alchemy table. One container - a vial filled with an opaque red liquid - is intact and stoppered. What do you do? Player 1: It's probably a poison - these dark elves traffic in the stuff. Player 2: What if it's a beneficial potion? I use my herbalism kit to help identify the substance. DM: Okay. To set that up and get a certain reading, it will take a good 10 minutes - potentially enough time for someone to notice the battle that just happened. Cool with that? Player 1: We can't afford another battle right now - our cleric has no more favor of the gods and my fires burn low. Player 2: I'll do a rush job on testing the liquid in the vial then. DM: Go ahead and make a Wisdom check with your proficiency bonus. Player 2: *rolls* Ugh, 8. DM: The test is inconclusive, but while setting up your kit and performing the test, you find some curative herbs and roots among the scattered reagents. What do you do? Player 1: Let's play it safe and assume it's poison until you have more time to check it out. Player 2: Agreed. |
| #21DemoMonkeyApr 30, 2015 12:37:01 | Iseriths method of imparting information to the characters, itself gives information to the players. Some DMs (and some players) prefer not to do it that way.
It's not wrong, but it is a particular style.
The question you have to ask yourself as DM is, if the characters fail at something where the character would not know the differnce between no conclusion and false conclusion, do you let the player know the difference between no conclusion and false conclusion? And if you do, what is the social contract at your table for how they will react to that information; according to character knowledge or player knowledge?
|
| (Reply to #19)bawylie |
|
| #23iserithApr 30, 2015 14:16:22 | Going back to my example, say the DM narrates the result of the Player 2's action as "You think it's a potion of healing." It's not and Player 1 is correct in his or her assumption - it's a deadly poison. Player 2, seeing the low roll and not being able to trust the DM's narrated result, puts the potion in his or her character's backpack. It never again sees the light of day, even when the characters are out of healing and low on hit points/hit dice, even when a potion of healing is the best or only way to restore a dying character in a particular circumstance.
Short of a reasonable justification for not drinking or force-feeding the potion to someone, is Player 2 "metagaming?" What would he or she have to do to be considered to be acting faithfully on character knowledge rather than player knowledge with regard to the potion? |
| #24El_CondoroApr 30, 2015 13:54:47 | If a DM has put a potion (or anything else, for that matter) in a location it is for the characters to find and interact with. If it's a potion, just go with the DMG p.136 under 'Identifying a Magic Item': "Potions are an exception: a little taste is enough to tell the taster what the potion does." If it is really poison, there should be enough signs for the characters (and players) to have a chance to identify and avoid it, otherwise it's just a gotcha trap. At that point, skill checks may be requested with results narrated along the lines of "you (the character) are not sure, you are reasonably confident, you are positive" of an interpretation of the check result. As others have said above, it is up to the DM to give reliable and truthful information, even if it's not the whole story, and up to the players to describe their characters' actions according to their interpretation of that information. |
| #25Rya.ReisenderApr 30, 2015 14:07:28 | @bawylie I think you mean a different way of lying than what me and the others meant. As you said yourself, it is different telling the player his character thinks something than it is telling him it is the case. You shouldn't say "IS" if it's not true, but you can say "You think" or even "You are sure that". This is what I meant with lying.
Also you don't lie to the player but to the character of the player. This has nothing to do with trust towards the DM but rather with trust towards your own character's abilities.
And of course you can mandate as DM what a character thinks if he asks about it, but it depends a bit on the style of the DM and if your players are able to play along.
It could go like this (NPC is actually lying):
A) As hidden roll Player: "I want to know if he is lying." DM: *does hidden roll which is a 1* "You have the impression this guy is honest." Player: "Hey guys, I think this guy is honest." Other player: "Alright then, let's follow him."
B) No hidden roll (if players are unable to play along) Player: "I want to know if he is lying." DM: "Roll insight." Player: "1" DM: "You have the impression this guy is honest." Player: (knowing his result, he just assumes the opposite) "Hey guys, this guy seems honest but I feel he is actually lying." DM: "That action is invalid for your character, you have to act as if you think he really is honest." Player: "Alright alright, then I just tell them I think he's honest." Other player: "Well I don't trust player's judgement and want to check myself." DM: *looks up if mistrusting his allies fits to the general personality of the character, if yes, it's fine, if no, invalid action*
C) No hidden roll (but players able to play along) Player: "I want to know if he is lying." DM: "Roll insight." Player: "1" DM: "You have the impression this guy is honest." Player: "Hey guys, I think this guy is honest." Other player: "Alright then, let's follow him." (may even yield inspiration bonus for getting the group into a disadvantage to stay true to the character)
You should not make frequent use of this, just occasionally so players don't start to assume that when the DM says "you see" or "you think" or "you have the impression" that it's always true. Because that's the problem when you only say something like "you can't tell" or "you are unsure" on a failure. A concrete answer should simply not always contain the truth.
Also situation B seems a bit annoying but players will eventually learn how to do it right and such issues no longer appear eventually. If I play with someone for more than a month I basically never have to tell him an action is invalid anymore. |
| #26Rya.ReisenderApr 30, 2015 14:17:24 |
|
| #27iserithApr 30, 2015 14:25:49 |
|
| #28iserithApr 30, 2015 14:28:15 |
|
| #29bawylieApr 30, 2015 14:43:22 | Examples A, B, and C all ask for rolls without knowing what the character is *doing* to find out if the NPC is lying.
Its weird, because the player wants to know if the NPC is lying. The roll indicates success or failure: "Yes/No" and when you combine that with the narrative, you get a weird effect.
"You believe him" + "high roll" = he's truthful. "you believe him" + "low roll" = he's untruthful. "You don't believe him" + "high roll" = he's untruthful. "You don't believe him" + "low roll" = he's truthful.
But the problem here is you've let the roll and answer determine a reality. When the ability check, used properly, simply tells us whether or not an attempt to do something succeeds or doesn't.
No wonder you get players wanting to maximize passive perception! The results bend reality! |
| #30Rya.ReisenderApr 30, 2015 14:47:17 |
|
| #31iserithApr 30, 2015 14:58:12 |
|
| #32Rya.ReisenderApr 30, 2015 15:19:06 |
|
| #33Rya.ReisenderApr 30, 2015 15:16:47 |
|
| #34iserithApr 30, 2015 15:27:19 |
|
| #35Rya.ReisenderApr 30, 2015 23:36:26 |
|
| #36El_CondoroMay 01, 2015 0:39:05 | (I recognise that a 'private' discussion is going on but it's a public forum, so I will add my 2 cps.)
'Realistic' in a fantasy setting is always a slippery notion and completely subjective.
|
| #37ImaculataMay 01, 2015 2:23:09 | What you can also do, is to ask the party who will be up front, and if that person will be checking for traps. Make that person check for traps once, and then use this roll to determine if they find any traps along the way. They don't get to reroll for every corridor and room.
Also, when the players find a trap, describe exactly what they see, and how they want to proceed. Disarming a trap should be more than just rolling dice. Ask them for a specific course of action. Will they cut the wire? Or hold it in place? Will they block the slits that arrows might shoot from? Or do they try to set it all off by throwing a rock at it? Only once they start doing something tricky, do you let them roll a disarm check on the trap. |
| #38iserithMay 01, 2015 7:02:22 |
|
| #39bawylieMay 01, 2015 6:51:33 | are you saying the player should be allowed to make his character do anything he wants regardless of whether it's realistic or not? -Yes
1) Would you allow a wizard who never heard of trolls before cast fire to finish it off right away? -Yes
2) Would you allow a character whose flaw is that he is very hesitant to continuously rush into a battle first? -Yes
3) Would you allow a good-aligned character to brutally torture a prisoner or kill all the commoners in a village? -No torture by common agreement
4) Would you allow a character that is unconscious to talk with his team mates? -Depends.
5) Would you allow a character that is charmed to act against the will of the spell? -Depends
6) Would you allow a character to do something that would ruin the fun ofthe other players, like attacking them? -No, by common consent.
The players have sovereignty over their characters. They are free to act as they please except where doing so violates the table's common agreement about the game. As DM, I don't mandate any course of action and never police a character's behavior (maybe a player's for a time,
|
| #40iserithMay 01, 2015 6:53:33 |
|
| #41lestroissauvagesMay 01, 2015 7:19:02 |
|
| #42Rya.ReisenderMay 01, 2015 7:21:47 | @iserith I can't really agree with you that the DM deciding what a player can do is against the rules. If you look closer, you will see that the DM has very well the right to interpret and enforce the rules (it even says that the rules are not in charge of the game but the DM is, so basically he can do whatever he wants anyway).
I personally just don't draw so much difference between being charmed and having only one realistic action the character would do in a situation. You do.
For me making a character drink a potion IS the result. The player can say what he doesn't want to drink the potion, but whether he succeeds in not drinking it or not is what the DM decides.
Anyway, let's get back to the original topic:
|
| #43bawylieMay 01, 2015 7:29:37 | Adjudicating the results of an action does not empower the DM to take actions on the players behalf and against their will. You are wrong.
As for searching a room, or repeating any action over and over and over without regard to time, the chances of accomplishing it are near to certain. If I have 10 hrs to kick open a locked door, it's gonna get kicked open eventually. If I have 6 months to comb through medical records to find fraud, I'll find it.
When actions are certain (either certain to succeed or to fail) no roll is required. No roll is appropriate.
Take 3 hrs to search a room, you'll find everything in it. |
| #44iserithMay 01, 2015 7:42:12 |
|
| (Reply to #35)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #46BRJNMay 03, 2015 16:46:18 | Rya, Are you playing as DM or as a PC? As you describe your style, I don't see any need for any other players at your table, since you tell every single character what they are going to do.
|
| #47Rya.ReisenderMay 05, 2015 0:43:57 | I'm playing as DM and I never ran into such a situation described at all because first of all, all my players try to stay true to their characters in the first place. Even if they do something against their personality, I'll eventually tell them "I think that this and that does not fit to your character's description because of this flaw and that personality trait." and they usually understand it. If they are heavily arguing that they meant that trait differently, then okay, I'll allow them to adjust that on their character sheet. They should play a personality they enjoy playing after all.
Secondly, even if I strongly enforce "Only do actions that fit to your character", it doesn't mean that I get to decide what the characters do, because so far, every player had at least 5 possible things he could do that all fit to his character.
Also I'm not opposed to iserith's and Aaron's approach, I actually like it. But I don't think it solves the issue of the OP in this thread, that he doesn't want a character to automatically succeed eventually. |
| #48iserithMay 05, 2015 9:03:57 |
|
| #49Rya.ReisenderMay 05, 2015 13:02:54 | Asking players to play their character in a realistic way does not prevent character growth. If there is an event that would be a reasonable explanation for the character's personality to change, then that's perfectly acceptable and even encouraged. That's why I always give player a chance to explain.
If someone creates a noble character that has a trait that he doesn't want to get dirty and that character dashes through a muddy area, I say "Hm that doesn't really fit". If that character loses a person important to him because he didn't dare to walk through mud to not want to get his clothes dirty, it however, it reasonable that he will still being scared of muddy areas and would totally dash through them in order to help a friend.
|
| #50iserithMay 05, 2015 18:34:01 |
|
| #51TrueManiekMay 06, 2015 2:01:08 | Sorry to barge In your discussion but I have a question @Rya.Reisender
It seems to me like you identify the choice of characters with a successfully check. Let me explain, using your examples.
Poison of healing: When a character successfully makes a check, he identify it as poison, and he can do whatever he wants, but when he fails, you tell him it’s potion, and that he must drink it whenever a situation occurs.
Follow the lair: When a character successfully makes a check, he knows NPC is lying, and he can do whatever he wants, but when he fails, you tell him he needs to follow him because he believes him.
Am I reading this right?
Also, imagine yourself playing a character, and you have fun, you like this character and his personality, and you think you are playing him quite well. And by the end of the session DM have a grudge against you and is saying something like: “You are playing character differently than I imagined it, it means you are plying it WRONG!”. That is really hurtful, I know, I’ve been there. |
| #52Rya.ReisenderMay 06, 2015 4:39:22 | I don't think character personalities are THAT subjective. All the traits and flaws are usually written so they can be fairly objectively rated. That a greedy character wants to keep money for himself is not my subjective view on the character, it's the definition of the word greedy.
It's the DM's job to determine if someone plays his character properly or not. And E5 intentionally implemented inspiration so that players actually do get motivated to play their characters according to their character descriptions and not according to their player knowledge. |
| #53iserithMay 06, 2015 5:33:48 |
|
| #54Rya.ReisenderMay 06, 2015 6:32:14 |
|
| #55iserithMay 06, 2015 7:03:23 |
|
| #56bawylieMay 06, 2015 9:28:49 | PC suspects NPC is lying. Decides to scrutinize his word choice to see if he can catch NPC in a lie. DM asks for an insight check and PC fails. This doesn't mean PC now believes NPC, it means only that the attempt to catch NPC lying failed.
PC can still suspect NPC is lying - just no evidence found.
|
| #57Rya.ReisenderMay 06, 2015 11:21:14 | The problem is that a failed check doesn't really have a consequence if players can just act as they want even if they fail.
@iserith Yes, making an NPC trust the characters less because he notices they check him is a consequence, but in reality it's not really applicable because when there is a character you can't trust then the character is very likely to not trust the characters in the first place because he knows they are enemies or he is captured so the character's couldn't care less whether that enemy trusts them or not, because they'll just finish him off after the discussion anyway. |
| #58bawylieMay 06, 2015 12:07:35 |
Players can always act as they want.
The problem, such as it is, is that there's an apparent lack of clarity between what a player tries to do and the consequences of the attempt itself.
In other words, I'm not rolling to see if I believe the NPC. I'm rolling to see whether or not I can catch him in a lie.
Im not rolling to see whether or not I poison myself. I'm rolling to see whether or not a given potion is poisonous.
If I'm playing a dwarf that hates orcs and I'm fighting against an orc and a drow, I get to pick who and how o Attack. The DM doesn't jump in and say "no, you can't attack the drow. You hate orcs - that's out of character."
Its simply an untenable position. What do player decisions mean if they are subject to being overruled? |
| #59iserithMay 06, 2015 12:19:26 |
|
| #60DemoMonkeyMay 06, 2015 14:09:32 | One of the unstated assumptions by some in this thread is that there are degrees of failure, and that a failure by a sufficient amount (such as rolling a natural 1) is bad enough to give the character false information, rather than no information.
If you think this is true - that missing by 10 (or rolling a natural 1) should have an effect different than missing by 1 - then this entire line of discussion on how much information to give players so that their characters can react appropriately, is valid.
If you are of the opinion that all failures are equal howeverl, and only result in "inconclusive" results rather than "false positive" ones, then the whole discussion is pointless because you are not actually arguing the same thing.
Every other point is irrelevant. |
| #61bawylieMay 06, 2015 13:49:27 | I think all failures are circumstantial.
I DMed for a guy in 4E who played an extremely stealthy ranger. While out and about he botched a stealth roll (because dice). The character was talented and very trained. So the failure represented a sudden and unexpected shift in the clouds, and a beam of moonlight illuminated his position.
Nothing to do with the character's efforts - but reflective of the situation created by the die roll. |
| #62iserithMay 06, 2015 13:57:51 | You can give a player false information, but the player is not in any way obligated to act upon it as such. We're back to the potion of poison that is mistaken to be a potion of healing. The player can choose not to drink that potion, even if the character or ally is in dire straits for healing... unless of course the DM has no problem with controlling the actions of player characters which some DMs apparently are willing to do. |
| #63DemoMonkeyMay 06, 2015 14:06:19 | Yes, but bawylie, in that situation did the PLAYER know the character had failed? If not, then either 1) you don't think a really really bad roll is ever indicative of the character or player receiving false information/making a faulty conclusion or 2) you don't think that a really really bad roll should ever result in the player receiving false information/making a faulty conclusion even if their character does.
That's fine, but you have to understand it's not a universal assumption. |
| (Reply to #63)bawylie |
|
| #65DemoMonkeyMay 06, 2015 14:41:30 | "I don't think a player should be given false information, ever."
I don't think I've ever found myself on the same side of an argument as Iserith, and the opposite side from you bawylie. it's...disorienting.
If your session zero includes the statement from the DM "I will always tell you what your character perceives - or misperceives - not necessarily what is objectively true." then there shouldn't be a problem. If your objective is to give your players an experience where they see the game world as much as possible through the lens of their character, that is - in my opinion, mustn't forget the qualifier - the best way to go about that.
But again, this goes back to the more fundamental question of whether you believe there should be such a thing as "degrees of failure".
|
| #66iserithMay 06, 2015 14:47:18 |
|
| #67DemoMonkeyMay 06, 2015 14:56:11 | I wouldn't countenance telling a player what to do. It's not necessary so long as you sufficiently and consistently reward good roleplaying and pointedly do not reward bad roleplaying. (Definitions of which to be commonly agreed on by the group.)
I find it sufficient to give the players only the information their characters would have, delivered in such a way to avoid "tells". That does sometimes require rolls behind the screen instead of in the open; I've never actually had a player complain about that, even in passing or during after game bull sessions. The rewards are higher than the costs.
And yes, full disclosure, I think the most commonly used definition of "metagaming" is something to be minimized as much as practical. That informs both my approach, and my players expectations. |
| #68bawylieMay 06, 2015 14:58:29 | "If your objective is to give your players an experience where they see the game world as much as possible through the lens of their character, that is ... the best way to go about that."
Well, no. It isn't. But we'll let the qualifier handle this particular dispute on an agree-to-disagree basis.
my objective is not to give the players an experience where they see the game world through the lens of the character. I don't care how they see the game world. My objective is to evoke an emotional response in the player that matches the emotions their character might feel in that situation. Their heartspace, instead of their headspace, if you follow me.
frightening scenes should frighten. Tense scenes should feel tense. Parties should be fun. None of which requires my players to be in their characters' heads. |
| #69DemoMonkeyMay 06, 2015 15:16:35 | Side question: How long does one of your campaigns usually last bawylie?
I find I have a very different approach - closer to yours - if I am running a one shot or a 6 or 12 session mini-series, than a full campaign. Our campaigns last years (we are on year 4 of the current one, and it's not our longest). The long play is different from the short play, so to speak.
I also find for the long haul, character immersion - even, if need be, at the cost of immediate short term emotional response - is a more fulfilling approach. |
| #70bawylieMay 06, 2015 15:40:36 | Campaigns run in seasons of 6 sessions each. After a season I switch to a different campaign and run a season of that.
I am running 4 groups currently.
Main group just ended a campaign that ran 20 seasons and I'm gearing up a new long one for them. That'll be d&d. They were my playtest group and I mostly ran stress tests as opposed to a campaign. Main group also plays seasons of Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, and SWSE. These tend to be 3 seasons each before I close them. Then we re-roll all new characters etx
Kids' group runs monthly and is currently in season 3.
Disabilities Group runs monthly and is in season 8?
Off-group only wants to run piracy. They meet quarterly and are in season 2. |
| #71iserithMay 06, 2015 15:54:54 |
|
| #72DemoMonkeyMay 06, 2015 19:07:09 | bawylie
Thank you for the info. Very cool.
Iserith
"A player faced with a low roll and knowledge that the DM gives out false information may not choose to act as if that information is true. Which leads the DM to things like taking dice away from players."
"Taking diceaway from the players" is an unnecessarily loaded way of saying "DM makes some rolls in secret". I don't leap over the table and grab the dice from the players hands. (Not even those deeply annoying dark purple on dark blue ones everyone has to squint at..)
It's simple. The goal myself and my players want to achieve is to think like the characters as much as possible. They don't WANT information their characters would not have - which is quite distinct from having that information and having to choose whether or not to act on it - and so I ensure that I deliver information to them in a way that respects that goal.
And sometimes that means telling them things that are wrong because by consensus on what bad rolls mean for our group - that's what their characters would believe.
|
| #73iserithMay 06, 2015 19:38:41 | Aren't you necessarily telling the players how their characters think though and, by doing that, diminishing player agency? There's quite a big difference between "You are unable to discern the truthfulness of the NPC" and "You believe the NPC's lies," at least as far as agency is concerned. Perhaps you feel this is a fair trade-off for something you believe helps facilitate your "immersion?" |
| #74DemoMonkeyMay 06, 2015 20:19:02 | I am occasionally telling the players what their chatacters think, yes, based on die rolling and skill resolution conventions that we all agree on. Is that a loss of agency? No, we don't find that it is.
In the example you use, if the player makes a succesful die roll you would tell them "Your character thinks the NPC is lying". Is that not also telling the player what their character thinks?
When you tell the player "Your character believes X" you have the same impact on their agency (minimal) regadless of whether the information you present them with is objectively right or wrong.
Using the "lying NPC" example, and assuming the NPC is actually lying, the method you present allows of two possibilities: 1) The player makes their roll and knows the NPC is lying, or 2) The player fails their roll and knows that they cannot determine if the NPC is lying.
The method I present allows of three:1) The player believes the NPC is lying, 2) The player doesn't know if the NPC is lying or not, 3) The player believes, incorrectly, the NPC is telling the truth. |
| #75iserithMay 06, 2015 20:50:10 |
|
| #76Rya.ReisenderMay 07, 2015 0:05:53 | Here is a different way to look at it.
Say you roll low and the DM tells you a lie. Because you - as a player - know the roll was bad and consequently can assume that you've been told a lie, you might play your character differently than if you believed the DM (e.g. on a hidden roll).
You say the DM gets to decide what the character does, but I say, it would have been what the player would have done himself, wouldn't he have had more information than his character.
If the player believed he has a potion of healing, he most likely would how drunk it, if it was his last option to not die, for example. The only reason why the player would ever NOT drink it in such a situation is because he uses information his character doesn't have. |
| #77TrueManiekMay 07, 2015 0:21:44 | A little off-topic question…
Why do you escalate insight? Why do you make NPC hostile if the player don’t succeed discerning lies? Is it just to have some kind of failure for check? What if player would want to discern if Npc is lying naturally, in course of conversation (as it sometimes happen in real life), not by checking out NPc like he is a mannequin? |
| (Reply to #76)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #79Rya.ReisenderMay 07, 2015 2:09:51 |
|
| (Reply to #79)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #81Rya.ReisenderMay 07, 2015 4:30:07 | It is kind of the Pen & Paper principle "If something is not sure, then roll to determine result." and not "Players decide what happens to their character". |
| #82iserithMay 07, 2015 5:38:22 |
|
| #83iserithMay 07, 2015 5:43:12 |
|
| (Reply to #81)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #85iserithMay 07, 2015 5:50:34 |
|
| #86DemoMonkeyMay 07, 2015 6:39:13 | "Valid: Player drinks the potion, DM narrates result of being poisoned. Invalid: DM tells player his character thinks the potion is one of healing, then later says the character drinks it."
Agree with your assessment in both cases.
Also valid: DM tells the player the potion is healing even though it's poison, because the roll (made in secret) was a natural 1 and the table rule is that a natural 1 on a skill check results in false information or some other negative outcome. Player can choose to try their luck with the potion or not.
I am 100% in favour of players making decisions for their characters themselves; it's my job to present them with information to do so, in such a way that the presentation style of the information is not itself information. I consider the characters impression of things to be part of delivering that information. Telling them "The cave is hot from the elemental magma below." is technically co-opting the players agency of their character because maybe they don't consider 40 Celsius "hot" - but it's still useful shorthand for delivering information. Telling them "The Potion is Healing" (or "The NPC is a being truthful.") is exactly the same thing.
As I said upthread, the key element of this discussion isn't actually player agency, upon which rock it is likely to founder. It's whether your game includes some concept of failure/worse failure in your skill resolution. If it does, you need to take further steps in how information is presented. If it doesn't, it's probably a moot point for you. |
| #87iserithMay 07, 2015 7:07:03 |
|
| #88bawylieMay 07, 2015 7:38:32 | Glad I passed the shibboleth "maybe your games are just too short for deep immersion" hurdle.
:/
At my table, stance is a personal choice. If you wish to interact with the world exclusively from the eyes of your own character, that's your business. I will neither police your stance, nor require anyone else to adopt it. Immersion is scalable and subjective. I leave it to the player to immerse themselves. My goal remains to evoke emotional responses that fit the situation, even using mini games and the meta game to do so.
I will not lie to the players. I will not take their actions for them nor tell them what they think. I will determine the outcome of actions they take. But suspicion isn't an action. Mistrusting a pickup potion isn't an action.
P: I search for traps. (Roll, requested by DM, is low). D: You do not find traps. (Factually there are none. I asked for the roll bc the player fears a trap will be sprung. The check should automatically succeed, but I want to evoke the tension). P: I rolled low, so I'm still on the lookout for traps. D: Unless circumstances change substantially, or you take a lot of time and go over the place with a fine toothed comb, your roll stands. What do you do? P: Are there traps? D: You weren't able to find any. P: Ah nuts, I'll take the time to look.
D: It'll be about an hour - what do you do? P: Yeah I'll do it. D: You search thoroughly, carefully, and from top to bottom, but it seems your initial sweep was good enough. There are no traps here. |
| #89iserithMay 07, 2015 7:48:23 |
|
| (Reply to #89)bawylie |
|
| #91DemoMonkeyMay 07, 2015 9:19:59 | Feel free to leave me out of the "DM Compulsion" argument, since it isn't anything I'm advocating and has nothing to do with anything I have actually said.
Carry on. |
| (Reply to #91)bawylie |
|
| #93Rya.ReisenderMay 07, 2015 11:54:32 | The whole discussion didn't even start with anyone saying a DM should force a player to do something.
It started with me saying that the information given to a player should be kept to a minimum to reduce situations where the player acts differently because he - as a player - knows more about something than his character does. Then I said that doing hidden rolls and occassionally tell the player a lie is one way to accomplish this. On this bawylie said, you should NEVER lie to a player. And then iserith kind of forced me to admit that lying to a player could potentially lead to a situation where the DM either needs to force a player to act his character according to roll result (bad) or allow the player to let his character still mistrust the roll result (makes rolling pointless in the first place).
But I really don't even know where the discussion should go now. First of all, the main requirement in Pen & Paper should be that everyone is having fun. This includes the DM. I can say that if I play with players that don't play their characters according to their traits, flaws, etc., I don't have fun. I'm fully aware that players probably won't have fun if I force them to act their character how I think they would.
Only solution: I play with players that I have fun playing with and players that don't like my style should find another DM they have fun with.
I can't really go so far and tolerate general statements like "You should never lie to your players", because I think it strongly depends on playing style and in P&P basically everything is possible that can be imagined. You can DM by railroading with forks the players can decide on. Advantage is you can make really epic stories, less work for DM as he can plan ahead and doesn't need to improvise, disadvantage is little options for the players. You can also be completely free form and allow players to do everything, story might suffer, a lot of work for the DM, you give players the power to effectively ruin the fun for others. Advantage however is that everything is possible and players don't feel limited at all.
And then there are hundreds of possible middle ways.
In reality this hardly ever mattered for me because my players still follow the story I planned, don't try to break the system, try to play according to their character without the need of me telling them (other than occasionally give them hints on what they could do that fits their character and is interesting when I notice they are stuck), so I never ever had the need to force them do anything in the first place. |
| #94bawylieMay 07, 2015 12:07:54 | "On this bawylie said, you should NEVER lie to a player."
And I stand by it. Lying, especially to friends, especially from a position of power, is wrong. You choose to be wrong in service of something else? Fine. Your choice. Still wrong.
maybe its ok with your players. And maybe you will never have any negative externalities for it. Idk. But you're* not gonna convince me it's right or good, whatever. (*2nd person plural, informal).
all that in mind. I used to lie. I used to do a lot of stuff I don't anymore. I used to just blindly follow rules and DM as an antagonist. Over time those things proved out crap. It took me time to come to some realizations & I keep learning every day. So I'm not here to call you evil for lying to your players. But I will tell you it's wrong and maybe you'll come around.
or not. But either way, that's on you*
(2nd person, plural, informal). |
| #95iserithMay 07, 2015 12:12:40 |
|
| (Reply to #95)bawylie |
|
| #97DemoMonkeyMay 07, 2015 15:00:39 | "But it doesn't hurt to question why we do things the way we do and what impact that has on the game."
Good advice for everyone; even if you still disagre with the other person afterwards, understanding their viepoint is always useful.
"Lying, especially to friends, especially from a position of power, is wrong."
All D&D is lying from that perspective. "The room contains 7 gnolls." is a lie, because there ARE no gnolls and there IS no room; the DM is making it up. There is no objective reality to a D&D game, it's a purely fictional construct.
By that metric, "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away." is a lie."Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus." is a lie. “Mr. and Mrs. Dursley of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much.” is a lie. And "We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something like "I feel a bit lightheaded; maybe you should drive..." And suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full of what looked like huge bats, all swooping and screeching and diving around the car, which was going about a hundred miles an hour with the top down to Las Vegas." is...well, that one is probably true.
But you see my point. |
| #98bawylieMay 07, 2015 15:22:41 | ...
Alright. Let's examine further. 1.) lying means deliberately making a false statement with the intent to deceive. It's distinct from fabrication of a fictional construct or story because obviously. Lying doesn't mean "saying things that aren't factual."
2.) When the fictional construct created by the DM is understood objectively to be a complete fabrication, it is therefore vital that there be a clear demarcation between what is part of that fictional construct and what is not. That is, we must have some stipulation as to what's "real" in the construct and what isn't.
3.) Absent a clear demarcation of what is and isn't part of the construct, a player cannot make any intelligent or educated move. They're in a situation wherein they're asked to assume facts not in evidence and then to plan and act accordingly. "Ahead of you, you might see 3 orcs. But it could be 5 dragons. In any case they're surely NOT a single orphan. Though they might be. He lunges at you. What do you do?"
4.) Understanding that the players only interface with the fictional construct IS the DM, and that the demarcation line is illustrated BY the DM, a player must have total trust of stipulated realities. Or else the game doesn't work.
5.) Accordingly, abusing that trust & that authority, by intentionally deceiving the players with the intent to mislead them on what is assumed to be "real" and what is not, has the additional effect of telling them "You can no longer rely on assumed realities. The demarcation line is arbitrary."
6.) When the demarcation between assumed facts and perceptions is blurred or nonexistent, players must rely on some other means of acting intelligently. Most frequent thing I've seen is trying to meta- the DM. "Orphans Huh? Last time we saw an orphan it was 5 dragons. Let's just kill it just in case."
TLDR: Stories and fictional constructs aren't lies. They're assumed realities. Introducing lies into assumed realities weakens those realities and uses players' trust against them. Frowny-brad.
|
| #99DemoMonkeyMay 07, 2015 15:49:08 |
I picked the one that seemed the most germane.
"2.) When the fictional construct created by the DM is understood objectively to be a complete fabrication, it is therefore vital that there be a clear demarcation between what is part of that fictional construct and what is not.
Correct. "Gromgax Beefyscoop believes the potion is a healing potion" (regardless of whether it is or not) is part of the fictional construct. This is not lying to the person sitting at the table.
"Sure I can give you a drive home after the game." (when I actually won't) is not part of the fictional construct. This is lying to the person at the table.
I see a signifcant difference between those two things.
That is, we must have some stipulation as to what's "real" in the construct and what isn't. "
Everything in the construct is the same level of reality. Your characters perceptions of that reality however, may or may not be faulty. Those are two distinctly different points.
I will accurately describe what your character perceives filtered through the rules we all agree to before the game started. You will know that your character may be wrong, and have to decide whether or not to risk that being so.
Does that lead to some uncertainty? Yes. Does that uncertainty make the game more exciting and victory sweeter, or lead to awesome emergent gameplay if your character IS wrong? Also yes.
TLDR: Stories and fictional constructs aren't lies, and the author of the story is not lying when they use the equivalent of an unreliable narrator to convery information. The unreliability of the information is part of the narrative framework, and if the players have bought into it, a useful tool.
(Kudos, I did get a good laugh at the 3 orcs that might be 5 dragons but are definitely not an orphan example. I hope to use that the next time one of my players is hit with some debilitating confusion or intoxicating effect.) |
| #100bawylieMay 07, 2015 18:34:02 | I mostly agree so long as we confine ourselves to discussion of perception vs hard reality.
"This looks and tastes like a potion of healing" leaves room for it to NOT be.
"This is a potion of healing" MUST be, IMO.
"You don't find traps" (but there could be some).
"There are no traps" (and there cannot be any). |
| #101Rya.ReisenderMay 08, 2015 1:58:23 | Should be "You think the potion looks and tastes like a potion of healing". "This looks and tastes like a potion of healing" would truly be a lie.
Though that's really just semantics. You can write everything as facts as long as your players know how you mean it. |
| #102iserithMay 08, 2015 7:00:58 | If we're talking about a potion of poison (DMG, pg. 188), it's fine to say it looks, smells, and tastes like a potion of healing. That would not be a lie - it is the objective truth no matter who gawks at it, sniffs it, or sips it.
"You think the potion looks and tastes like a potion of healing" is just the DM overstepping his or her role again. "Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks..." (Basic Rules, page 66). |
| #103Rya.ReisenderMay 08, 2015 8:28:49 | Right, my mistake, didn't realize they look completely alike because the potion of poison has been enchancted by magic to do so.
And I still think it's the DMs job to tell players what their character thinks. At least if they want to know it by for example checking a potion (when it's not obvious). It's even more obvious with "recall" checks. The player might say he wants to recall what his character knows about something and then it's the DMs job to tell him what his character knows. |
| #104bawylieMay 08, 2015 8:34:33 | What the player has heard. Not what they know. Nor what they think.
Its really not my job to do your thinking for you. Or for your character. |
| #105iserithMay 08, 2015 8:37:46 |
|
| #106EckMay 08, 2015 10:37:52 |
|
| #107bawylieMay 08, 2015 11:56:36 | Eck, all my DM-ing is in person. Although I'm playing in Iserith's Summer at the Lake game as Kanati Uwohali. I'm learning a lot about the online format and I'm also learning PBP. So if I get around to only gaming, I'll let y'all know.
Wrt illusions. These are a special case in one regard. I still describe what the players see or perceive. but you want to pay attention to whether the spell was cast in their presence or not. For illusions not cast in their presence, I sometimes roll them an INT save behind the screen, to check whether they notice something fishy with the illusion. Otherwise, what they perceive is what they perceive.
For illusions cast in their presence, I merely describe what it looks like. Like an illusory monster or wall of fire looks like it was conjured there so that's how I describe it.
Clever illusionist NPC wizard: only 2/3s of his spells are illusions. Other third are real. You know he's an illusionist but you can't risk ignoring his spells. Or can you? |
| #108bawylieMay 08, 2015 12:00:56 | Note though that a player actively seeking out illusions or otherwise taking actions is different than a player interacting with illusions. Player actions are resolved like normal. But if they're not acting, I feel the discrete save is appropriate. |
| #109iserithMay 08, 2015 12:05:35 |
|
| #110bawylieMay 08, 2015 12:10:01 | I don't think an illusion is necessarily a trap, but it certainly could be. This is why DM adjudication is so important. |
| #111Greenstone.WalkerMay 10, 2015 17:28:46 | If a GM never lies to their players then how do they run illusions? Or mysteries? Or cons? Or double crosses? Or surprises? Or twists?
Perhaps I am missing something in the language here?
If there is an illusory wall in front of the characters and the GM says "there is a rock wall blocking your path", is that lying? If there is a potion of poison magically enchanted to look/smell/feel/taste/whatever like a potion of healing, is it lying to say to the players "your characters have found a potion of healing"? If the vizier (planning not to pay the characters) says "yes, I promise that you will all get paid in full when you return with the dragon's head", is that lying? If there is a doppelganger impersonating an Elf and the GM says "you see an Elf", is that lying? |
| (Reply to #111)AaronOfBarbaria |
|
| #113Rya.ReisenderMay 11, 2015 6:27:36 | I feel you are all a bit too hung up about the language.
Whether I say "There is a wall in front of you" or "You see a wall in front of you" or "You think there is a wall in front of you" really makes no effective difference for the player. The info the player needs is that he should act his character as if there is a wall.
I understand that you say that using "to be" is a direct lie and using "to think" is against the "players decide what their characters think" rule, but it really doesn't make any difference unless you are playing with someone equally hung up on the language the DM uses. On which case I'd simply ask that player what kind of phrasing he prefers and then use that for him.
Better always use the same phrasing by the way. If there is really a wall and you write "There is a wall" and if there is an illusion and you write "You see a wall", players could deduct the truth from your phrasing.
That's why I also wouldn't do it like iserith said earlier and describe an illusion bridge different from a normal bridge until the characters actually state they want to take a closer look at the bridge. |
| #114iserithMay 11, 2015 6:50:41 |
|
| #115bawylieMay 11, 2015 9:22:02 | Here's a little experiment. Tell your players the absolute truth. See if your game is still challenging.
"You come to a dead end. In truth, it's an illusion but your characters aren't aware of the fact. What do you do?"
"The vizier promises aid, solemnly. Unfortunately, he's lying, but you don't know that. What will you do?" |
| #116Rya.ReisenderMay 11, 2015 9:54:23 | @bawylie It's not fun to play like that.
|
| #117bawylieMay 11, 2015 10:01:48 | The experiment isn't to see if it's fun. It's to see if your game is still challenging sans lies/deceit.
I get the impression your game would be less challenging. |
| #118iserithMay 11, 2015 10:18:24 |
|
| #119Rya.ReisenderMay 11, 2015 10:28:34 | @bawylie Certainly the game would be a bit less challenging then (even though most challenge still comes from how smart I play the enemies during combat). What's your point, though?
@iserith I think you are misunderstanding. My point from the very beginning in this thread was to give players as little information as possible to prevent coming to situations where you have to force them to do something because their player knowledge prevents them from playing properly.
And if you consider "trying my best to get the group killed without cheating" as adversarial, then yes, I'm quite adversarial. |
| #120bawylieMay 11, 2015 10:45:11 | Here's my point: If you rely on your players' ignorance to take advantage of them, then your game isn't good.
And: If you lie, you cannot be trusted to be honest.
Bringing us to: Lying to your Players to make them ignorant in order to take advantage of that ignorance is adversarial (and crap) toward the Players; it doesn't challenge the characters; it encourages 'MetaGame' thinking to overcome the ignorance.
IMO, you're doing it wrong.
A lot of people fall into this, though. It's a natural fallback but I think it needs to be overcome. There are better way to challenge players and characters than by lying to them. I used to lie - until I grokked what it felt like when I was deceived. Then it dawned on me that I couldn't trust the DM - and that was the end of the game. The new game was a one-upmanship affair. Learn all the divinations, use them to find the real plot. Then everything is painted with lead paint and warded to prevent scrying. Then more and more of looking for "the holes." What is my DM trying to hide? I look for areas and people protected from divination. I search for lead. And on and on. Instead of Adventurer vs Adventure, it's Player vs DM.
No more of that for me. I don't want to be mad at my friends over a game. I want to play together, not against. I want trust, not deceit. I want fun, not a struggle. Challenge, not tribulation. |
| #121iserithMay 11, 2015 10:52:14 |
|
| #122Greenstone.WalkerMay 11, 2015 20:39:28 |
|
| #123Rya.ReisenderMay 12, 2015 0:02:27 |
|
| #124iserithMay 12, 2015 4:39:06 |
|
| #125Rya.ReisenderMay 12, 2015 4:57:31 | You really should add a "for me" at the end of your sentences. I'm the proof that it isn't like that for everyone. :-)
And I think my methods fit exactly with what I want to reach, I don't really see where you see a problem. |
| #126iserithMay 12, 2015 5:11:32 | What you think of cheating isn't cheating. The DM cannot cheat by any means. Players not acting in accordance with what you believe to be "character knowledge" is similarly not cheating. The DM and players aren't seeking to gain advantage over the other in a dishonest way because it's a cooperative game of storytelling, not a competitive game of who can beat whom. |
| #127DemoMonkeyMay 12, 2015 12:41:28 | If playing "a competitive game of who beat whom" is the best way for that particular group to all have fun and tell a compelling story, that is precisely what they should do.
Cheating is the wrong word to use in regards to player or DM not abiding by "playing based only on character/monster knowledge and not player knowledge and other restrictions as agree to in session zero". I believe the term you prefer for that behaviour Iserith is "playing in bad faith". |