asking the players to own their moves is as old as the game. used to be that players had to do their own mapping even and woe betide they who step over a cliff that wasn't properly recorded.
There's a difference between owning your move and having the GM force a player to have their PC blindly walk off a cliff like a cartoon lemming because it wasn't marked on the map and the player forgot about it. The PC can see that there's a cliff there and it's the GM's job to remember obstacles and remind players of their presence.
How does this scenario fall in your view of a "gotcha DM".
PC moves down a corridor at full speed, the player does not declare the PC is looking for traps, floor gives way, and PC falls into a pit of poisoned spikes.
You may have noticed that the quote I was responding to did not say "PC moves down a corridor at full speed, not looking for traps, and falls into a pit trap." It said players had to do their own mapping and it was their fault if they walked off a cliff that wasn't properly recorded on the map. That is textbook "gotcha GM."
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
asking the players to own their moves is as old as the game. used to be that players had to do their own mapping even and woe betide they who step over a cliff that wasn't properly recorded.
There's a difference between owning your move and having the GM force a player to have their PC blindly walk off a cliff like a cartoon lemming because it wasn't marked on the map and the player forgot about it. The PC can see that there's a cliff there and it's the GM's job to remember obstacles and remind players of their presence.
How does this scenario fall in your view of a "gotcha DM".
PC moves down a corridor at full speed, the player does not declare the PC is looking for traps, floor gives way, and PC falls into a pit of poisoned spikes.
LOL, that is a funny one and has happened to our group. Nonetheless, I wanted to point out the difference in the 2 scenarios.
The thorny bushes, the DM should tell the player that as they get closer, they notice the thorns. This does make sense and allows the player that last minute decision, chance the prickly or keep running? I don't consider that bit to be a "takeback" so much as a "as you are about to X you can now see Y" and allowing a change of plan. Like life. Plan was to bolt down and hide in bushes, as I get closer, I can see bushes are quite prickly......I can, mid-action change the plan I made with partial information. The DM could hard-line it, but then starts slowing combat as everyone will be taking one step at a time on their turn, for fear of committing to something that the actual character would notice AS they were carrying out said action.
The trap, however, isn't something that would be obvious or apparent, so WHOOSH, enjoy the ride, bud!
So far as attacking at disadvantage, I can see that would get annoying. Our group tends to verify, "I can attack that guy from where I am?" if we think there may be some form of issues. If it turns out we attack at disadvantage because it has a cloak or spell effect or something, we carry through, because we doubt our character would recognize that. Trying to hit someone through cover or some other obvious form of obstruction we usually get clued to, so can decide with full disclosure.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
asking the players to own their moves is as old as the game. used to be that players had to do their own mapping even and woe betide they who step over a cliff that wasn't properly recorded.
There's a difference between owning your move and having the GM force a player to have their PC blindly walk off a cliff like a cartoon lemming because it wasn't marked on the map and the player forgot about it. The PC can see that there's a cliff there and it's the GM's job to remember obstacles and remind players of their presence.
How does this scenario fall in your view of a "gotcha DM".
PC moves down a corridor at full speed, the player does not declare the PC is looking for traps, floor gives way, and PC falls into a pit of poisoned spikes.
The player plummets in the pit as long as the DM described the scene that the character saw and the player made the decision.
e.g.
Two scenarios
1) There is a pit in the middle of the corridor, it is dark and the character can't see it yet. The player says, I run down the corridor. The DM fails to mention the obvious pit that the character would notice and the DM says "You fall in a pit". Fail DM due to gotcha DMing. Failing to describe the scene that is obvious to the character and forcing the player to continue with actions chosen because the DM specifically gave incomplete information.
2) There is a hidden pit trap in the middle of the corridor that the character can't find unless they take time to do a more extensive search. The character may be always looking for traps but their passive perception isn't high enough to notice the trap. The player decides the character runs down the corridor. The character falls into the pit. The DM gave the character all the information that the character was able to notice, the player made their choice with full information, they may or may not have thought a trap was still a possibility - doesn't matter. Character falls in the trap and deals with the consequences.
The first is "gotcha" DMing - forcing the player to go with actions made with limited information that they SHOULD have had, that SHOULD have been obvious to a character present in the scene.
The most challenging situation like this for a DM to deal with is when the DM thinks they have given sufficient information but the player still doesn't get it. This is particularly noticeable in theater of the mind. Some people have no ability to visualize a scene from a verbal description and it is important for the DM to recognize that so that the player and DM are on the same page and the player can make reasonable decisions.
So, yeah, in my games, players don't get to take back actions due to consequences but I make sure that they understand what is going on - anything that makes movement harder, anything that will obstruct line of sight, positioning of bad guys, who can see what - so that they can make reasonable choices. It still occasionally happens that a player still doesn't understand when they decide what they want to do and depending on the circumstances I may still wind it back and let them decide once they actually understand things - though this is usually obvious from my perspective when the player tries to do something that I say to myself "that can't work" ... then I look at what I described incorrectly that is giving the player the idea that the actions they have chosen make sense.
asking the players to own their moves is as old as the game. used to be that players had to do their own mapping even and woe betide they who step over a cliff that wasn't properly recorded.
There's a difference between owning your move and having the GM force a player to have their PC blindly walk off a cliff like a cartoon lemming because it wasn't marked on the map and the player forgot about it. The PC can see that there's a cliff there and it's the GM's job to remember obstacles and remind players of their presence.
How does this scenario fall in your view of a "gotcha DM".
PC moves down a corridor at full speed, the player does not declare the PC is looking for traps, floor gives way, and PC falls into a pit of poisoned spikes.
You may have noticed that the quote I was responding to did not say "PC moves down a corridor at full speed, not looking for traps, and falls into a pit trap." It said players had to do their own mapping and it was their fault if they walked off a cliff that wasn't properly recorded on the map. That is textbook "gotcha GM."
well, yeah. you didn't ask a conversation forwarding question so they did. it might have been more on point to ask why walking off a cliff and willfully spending 30ft of movement to progress only two squares are not both gotchas. at least roll a will save against self harm because both of those moves would be counter to the desires of of an undistracted character.
How does this scenario fall in your view of a "gotcha DM".
PC moves down a corridor at full speed, the player does not declare the PC is looking for traps, floor gives way, and PC falls into a pit of poisoned spikes.
anyway, my answer to the pit trap: by the book, the character has passive perception. they suffer -5/disadvantage on the check for not going slow. i might tack on a dex save if this is meant to be an introductory trap or if the player prides themselves on being especially agile.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
asking the players to own their moves is as old as the game. used to be that players had to do their own mapping even and woe betide they who step over a cliff that wasn't properly recorded.
There's a difference between owning your move and having the GM force a player to have their PC blindly walk off a cliff like a cartoon lemming because it wasn't marked on the map and the player forgot about it. The PC can see that there's a cliff there and it's the GM's job to remember obstacles and remind players of their presence.
How does this scenario fall in your view of a "gotcha DM".
PC moves down a corridor at full speed, the player does not declare the PC is looking for traps, floor gives way, and PC falls into a pit of poisoned spikes.
For me, and I'm fairly old-fashioned, it depends on the definition of "full speed." If by full speed the player means running, it's absolutely not a gotcha; if by full speed the player means normal combat movement rate then it might be depending on the PC's passive perception. But in general, that's not a gotcha in my opinion.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You may have noticed that the quote I was responding to did not say "PC moves down a corridor at full speed, not looking for traps, and falls into a pit trap." It said players had to do their own mapping and it was their fault if they walked off a cliff that wasn't properly recorded on the map. That is textbook "gotcha GM."
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
LOL, that is a funny one and has happened to our group. Nonetheless, I wanted to point out the difference in the 2 scenarios.
The thorny bushes, the DM should tell the player that as they get closer, they notice the thorns. This does make sense and allows the player that last minute decision, chance the prickly or keep running? I don't consider that bit to be a "takeback" so much as a "as you are about to X you can now see Y" and allowing a change of plan. Like life. Plan was to bolt down and hide in bushes, as I get closer, I can see bushes are quite prickly......I can, mid-action change the plan I made with partial information. The DM could hard-line it, but then starts slowing combat as everyone will be taking one step at a time on their turn, for fear of committing to something that the actual character would notice AS they were carrying out said action.
The trap, however, isn't something that would be obvious or apparent, so WHOOSH, enjoy the ride, bud!
So far as attacking at disadvantage, I can see that would get annoying. Our group tends to verify, "I can attack that guy from where I am?" if we think there may be some form of issues. If it turns out we attack at disadvantage because it has a cloak or spell effect or something, we carry through, because we doubt our character would recognize that. Trying to hit someone through cover or some other obvious form of obstruction we usually get clued to, so can decide with full disclosure.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
The player plummets in the pit as long as the DM described the scene that the character saw and the player made the decision.
e.g.
Two scenarios
1) There is a pit in the middle of the corridor, it is dark and the character can't see it yet. The player says, I run down the corridor. The DM fails to mention the obvious pit that the character would notice and the DM says "You fall in a pit". Fail DM due to gotcha DMing. Failing to describe the scene that is obvious to the character and forcing the player to continue with actions chosen because the DM specifically gave incomplete information.
2) There is a hidden pit trap in the middle of the corridor that the character can't find unless they take time to do a more extensive search. The character may be always looking for traps but their passive perception isn't high enough to notice the trap. The player decides the character runs down the corridor. The character falls into the pit. The DM gave the character all the information that the character was able to notice, the player made their choice with full information, they may or may not have thought a trap was still a possibility - doesn't matter. Character falls in the trap and deals with the consequences.
The first is "gotcha" DMing - forcing the player to go with actions made with limited information that they SHOULD have had, that SHOULD have been obvious to a character present in the scene.
The most challenging situation like this for a DM to deal with is when the DM thinks they have given sufficient information but the player still doesn't get it. This is particularly noticeable in theater of the mind. Some people have no ability to visualize a scene from a verbal description and it is important for the DM to recognize that so that the player and DM are on the same page and the player can make reasonable decisions.
So, yeah, in my games, players don't get to take back actions due to consequences but I make sure that they understand what is going on - anything that makes movement harder, anything that will obstruct line of sight, positioning of bad guys, who can see what - so that they can make reasonable choices. It still occasionally happens that a player still doesn't understand when they decide what they want to do and depending on the circumstances I may still wind it back and let them decide once they actually understand things - though this is usually obvious from my perspective when the player tries to do something that I say to myself "that can't work" ... then I look at what I described incorrectly that is giving the player the idea that the actions they have chosen make sense.
well, yeah. you didn't ask a conversation forwarding question so they did. it might have been more on point to ask why walking off a cliff and willfully spending 30ft of movement to progress only two squares are not both gotchas. at least roll a will save against self harm because both of those moves would be counter to the desires of of an undistracted character.
anyway, my answer to the pit trap: by the book, the character has passive perception. they suffer -5/disadvantage on the check for not going slow. i might tack on a dex save if this is meant to be an introductory trap or if the player prides themselves on being especially agile.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
For me, and I'm fairly old-fashioned, it depends on the definition of "full speed." If by full speed the player means running, it's absolutely not a gotcha; if by full speed the player means normal combat movement rate then it might be depending on the PC's passive perception. But in general, that's not a gotcha in my opinion.