Search results

Here, I believe this fixes it for you. Would that have better related to the referred-to statement?

So is it the extent of the communication that you're talking about or would you describe it as something else? "I smash the vase", for what it says, is pretty clear.

you're not agreeing. Bacon Bit's said: There was a conditional clause. No, the rules do that. What gives you de facto permission, on your table, to make demands about the extent to which players make their declarations?

You are not communicating clearly. "I smash the vase" clearly communicates the message that this message contains.

Never-the-less, I'm not sure what question you were asking or what feedback you were seeking. Is the DM's and, for want of a better word, infiltrator's objective to achieve a situation where the anti-Paladin wouldn't be judged or are there other ideas that they have? But, like I say, infiltrator...

If you're talking in reference to your most recent there may be a few reasons. It's partly because moderators have, I think fairly, asked you to: and partly because, when you have then come up with a new thread idea, you haven't edited this into the OP that the original thread started with...

Comet 17 Eurayle 5 +1 = 6 The Fates 24 Flames 21 Fool 20 Gem 2 Jester 24 Key 20 Knight 19 Moon 25 Rogue 22 Ruin 26 Skull 28 Star 25 Sun 20 Talons 20 Throne 20 - 2 = 18 Vizier 25

Never gonna give up on the virtues of healthy, stealth-enabled Rick Rolling. :ROFLMAO:

The GM certainly gets to adjudicate the outcomes of action declarations which is often done with the help of participants rolling dice. GMs can also let players declare whatever they like which, perhaps, can be done to whatever level of specificity they like.

This seems to me as being a great way to go. The whole of D&D rests on the premise that there are no rules other than the social contract. I guess that one part of my social contract is that, while I'll encourage players to present, for instance, evocative action descriptions, they can...

This is so true. I'm lucky in that I've always been with players that are also fairly swift to act. In other situations where a player is slow, maybe habitually, in deciding on and giving any information on their actions, I know that some DMs would then just say, "OK, you take the dodge...

Something like that and any other reactions to you could give pause for thought.

Exactly, the DM is the rules. "You do you." But it seems that there are also a number of great DMs here that don't share all your views. I've had messages on ths subject during our conversations.

What limits do you think the DM has?

Why would you suppose it's not OK?

Things here are working fine.

But you seem to me to have an abject inability to simply agree to differ. Your misinterpretations and fanciful imaginations of non-existent problems in other people's lives are an utter waste of time. EVEN now this carries on. Honestly, it's OK for other people to play their games in the way...

In many situations, nothing. In some situations, it could suit characterization. Players are given the freedom to choose what they say in regard to their character's actions. GMs adjudicate the consequences. We've all had situations where we've retrospectively thought, I should have done it...

agreed, but I'd say that's the player's choice, but you do you.