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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Critical Role Episode #26 - spoilers!
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="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7465649" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p>Gotcha and thanks for the response.</p><p></p><p>To me, when the player asks for disadvantage on their own attacks to reflect their flaw, their intent and such was much more clearerly much more succintly reported to me than "feebly attack" or any amount of "rate the fear vs the attack in terms of" back and forth questioning could produce.</p><p></p><p>I dont feel its necessary or good for me to decide for him what "feebly" translates to or whether there is a will save that maybe he makes that then tells him (you over come it) or whatever you were seeing the will save accomplish.</p><p></p><p>If i choose to just tell him "describe without rules" then it comes down to me guessing what the level of issue they were shooting for was. Maybe i get it right. Maybe i dont.</p><p></p><p>But the key is if i were to do that i am drawing a huge honking line for them in how they portray giving into their flaw.</p><p></p><p>If they choose from set a (run away, take no actions, take normal actions etc) they get control of the exact outcome and resolution barring surprises or interruptions.</p><p></p><p>If the choose from set b (any mechanical change applied by a rule) the forfeit control and its my ball now and naybe they get the kind of change they sought or maybe they dont.</p><p></p><p>That division imo discourages them from taking a lot of options as it adds in the chance of an outcome their voluntary choice did not aim for. </p><p></p><p>I dont need to divorce my good players from the rules to manage rules lawyers at my table. Allowing the players more options does not diminish my control or authority. I find it does the opposite.</p><p></p><p>But, certainly for some groups at some tables it would be simpler and quicker for a player to just choose between the limited set of options under their control (take no action, run away, only take one swing out of two possible, etc etc etc) instead of trying any of the options which force the GM-player reconciliation of intent phase.</p><p></p><p>After all, if they just move up and declare "she just attacks once with her axe" that whole "what does feebly, fear vs attack" gets avoided.</p><p></p><p>Every table is different.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7465649, member: 6919838"] Gotcha and thanks for the response. To me, when the player asks for disadvantage on their own attacks to reflect their flaw, their intent and such was much more clearerly much more succintly reported to me than "feebly attack" or any amount of "rate the fear vs the attack in terms of" back and forth questioning could produce. I dont feel its necessary or good for me to decide for him what "feebly" translates to or whether there is a will save that maybe he makes that then tells him (you over come it) or whatever you were seeing the will save accomplish. If i choose to just tell him "describe without rules" then it comes down to me guessing what the level of issue they were shooting for was. Maybe i get it right. Maybe i dont. But the key is if i were to do that i am drawing a huge honking line for them in how they portray giving into their flaw. If they choose from set a (run away, take no actions, take normal actions etc) they get control of the exact outcome and resolution barring surprises or interruptions. If the choose from set b (any mechanical change applied by a rule) the forfeit control and its my ball now and naybe they get the kind of change they sought or maybe they dont. That division imo discourages them from taking a lot of options as it adds in the chance of an outcome their voluntary choice did not aim for. I dont need to divorce my good players from the rules to manage rules lawyers at my table. Allowing the players more options does not diminish my control or authority. I find it does the opposite. But, certainly for some groups at some tables it would be simpler and quicker for a player to just choose between the limited set of options under their control (take no action, run away, only take one swing out of two possible, etc etc etc) instead of trying any of the options which force the GM-player reconciliation of intent phase. After all, if they just move up and declare "she just attacks once with her axe" that whole "what does feebly, fear vs attack" gets avoided. Every table is different. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Critical Role Episode #26 - spoilers!
Top