What counts as a detailed enough, permissible action declaration?

[pemerton]

Ahhh Green Knight, yeah that all makes sense in that context and actually that kind of makes me want to play it! Agree completely re: swift conversions etc. ("road to Damascus" and so on).

Might not be the ideal example for this discussion because in those cases I'd expect more description for such a big play in other RPGs, but yeah with Green Knight this sounds like what it's all about - so I suppose this also points to different RPGs and different situations perhaps seeming to warrant different levels of description.

That last sentence (after the dash) is exactly the rationale for this thread.

As well as interesting general conjectures like the ones in your post about what motivates GM and so on, we can look at patterns across different sorts of RPGs.

Eg if the penalty for failing a climbing check is falling, that suggests more granularity/detail in description - or at least more of a move-by-move focus - than if the penalty is you don't get to the top in time to do everything you were hoping to do.

 

[pemerton]

And what would the internet be without argument? Seems you didnt take into consideration my OP where I specifically said that the player includes the skills they plan to do in their declaration, which is the optimal scenario.

Not arguing - just not really sure what you're getting at. Eg is it sufficient, in 5e D&D, for a player to say I persuade the Hunter to adopt vegetarianism and then ask for a CHA (Persuasion) check? That describes an intent. But would the GM require clarification?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And what would the internet be without argument? Seems you didnt take into consideration my OP where I specifically said that the player includes the skills they plan to do in their declaration, which is the optimal scenario.

I think the problem with what you're saying is that you're describing an entirely "modern D&D"-centric paradigm of action declaration.

A vast number of RPGs, include, at times, D&D, don't want players do be saying "I use my Action to roll Intimidate", as you seem to be suggesting is "ideal", they want the player to say what the character does and then the DM tells them what to roll. As this is the TTRPG forum not the D&D forum, I think that's particularly relevant.

However it does feed into what Pemerton is asking about - in 4E D&D, for example, in combat, whilst description was actively encouraged in the text (and bizarrely my players really went for it in a way they've not in other editions), it was generally not needed. You could select which ability you were using, and say who you were using it on, and that was certainly "detailed enough" to be permissible. Out of combat, 4E had pretty vague rules, so you tended to need to describe a bit more (like most editions of D&D). In 5E you have a somewhat similar paradigm, albeit less pronounced.

 

[the Jester]

OK, but doesn't this shift the burden back onto requires? When does a GM reasonably require more information?

When the player's intention and approach are unclear.

 

[Umbran]

They shouldnt need more information if the player describes what they are planning to do correctly.

Yes, but then what is "correctly"?

I think, unfortunately for the discussion, that this is going to be highly context dependent. You can think of resolution as a process, but it is a different process for each system and playstyle, each requiring different inputs.

Gygaxian-style room searches will call for different input from the player than, say, Star Trek scanning for a life form....

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, all I have here is my approach to GMing and adjudication. Regardless of the game, what I expect from my players is a non-mechanical explanation of what they want to accomplish, in as much detail as they can muster. It's my job to mechanize that and return a request for a roll, or not, and to decide what mechanic is appropriate. The reason I encourage detail is that it gives me handles to decide about difficulty, and I tend to reward specific and cogent action declarations. Essentially, the more reasonable and planned it sounds, the more likely I am to not bump the difficulty, or lower it, or not call for a roll, or whatever. The reason for that is that I like to reward player creativity and engagement with the diegetic frame (more than punish a lack of same).

 

[pemerton]

When the player's intention and approach are unclear.

But can we say more about what is required for a sufficiently clear approach?

Eg is I explain the scriptural reasons in favour of vegetarianism sufficiently clear? Is I search the room carefully sufficiently clear?

What I'm hoping for in the thread is a consideration of how and why different games, and/or different GMs, and/or different sorts of action declarations, look for different degrees of detail.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, but then what is "correctly"?

I think, unfortunately for the discussion, that this is going to be highly context dependent. You can think of resolution as a process, but it is a different process for each system and playstyle, each requiring different inputs.

Gygaxian-style room searches will call for different input from the player than, say, Star Trek scanning for a life form....

That is not unfortunate for the discussion. That's the whole point of the discussion! What is different about Gygaxian D&D vs Star Trek that yields the difference? Different resolution processes? Different salient fiction? Something else?

 

[pemerton]

Well, all I have here is my approach to GMing and adjudication. Regardless of the game, what I expect from my players is a non-mechanical explanation of what they want to accomplish, in as much detail as they can muster. It's my job to mechanize that and return a request for a roll, or not, and to decide what mechanic is appropriate. The reason I encourage detail is that it gives me handles to decide about difficulty, and I tend to reward specific and cogent action declarations. Essentially, the more reasonable and planned it sounds, the more likely I am to not bump the difficulty, or lower it, or not call for a roll, or whatever. The reason for that is that I like to reward player creativity and engagement with the diegetic frame (more than punish a lack of same).

Would your approach change in a system where the GM doesn't have to set the difficulty by consideration of the fiction?(Systems like this include Apocalypse World, Cortex+ Heroic, HeroQuest revised, The Green Knight, and to a significant extent D&D 4e skill challenges,)

Within your approach, is I speak to the hunter about the virtues of vegetarianism, with the intention of having him renounce the eating of meat a sufficiently detailed declaration? Ever? Sometimes?

 

[Imaculata]

When a player says they make their escape, then at the very least I'd ask them HOW they make their escape. Do they run away? Do they leap out of the window?

For social challenges, it seems boring to me to skip the actual conversation in its entirety. The player doesn't need to be a skilled actor, but I would hope for at least an attempt at words.

Then based on the words, I decide if a roll is needed. Not the exact words, but the general gist of what the player is saying. We can pretend that the character is better with the words than the player is.