Search results

Nobody's demanding anything, as stated above. I'll note that it was said upthread by Lanefan and possibly others that asking for clarity can mean the player might "metagame" or ask for "takebacks" if they become suspicious as to why the DM is asking for clarity. Now I don't care about these...

I don't demand. I ask that players state a clear goal and approach. And I explain why it's important - so they can act with agency and I can fairly adjudicate their action without a lot of back and forth slowing down the game. That seems like a normal conversation to me of getting on the same...

I ask them to fill in the bits that are missing (the approach or the goal). As already stated, players tend to catch on that they're going to get this question and will start to get it done up front.

Absolutely. As stated upthread already, it does not communicate how the character attempts to smash the vase, which may be relevant to how the smashing of the vase is resolved and narrated.

I fully agree that the player should clearly communicate what they want to do, including if they are having the character act carelessly. Acting carelessly might well be part of the character's personal characteristics and worth Inspiration (e.g. Criminal personality trait "I don't pay attention...

One doesn't need to have an "adversarial game" to value and expect a clearly communicated action declaration from the player.

I'm not sure what you mean exactly. But in any case, I don't care that not everyone shares all my views. Wasn't it you who said, unprovoked, that people can play however they want, after all? That being so, why would it give me pause that someone thinks about these things differently than me?

Yes, the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. Which is why I say the limit is not the rules at all, but what the players are willing to tolerate. I, for example, wouldn't tolerate the DM encroaching upon the one thing I'm expected to do in the game - describe what my character does...

I would say the limit is whatever the players are willing to put up with. I would not, for example, put up with a DM who takes over my character and describes what they do. The rules of the game do not suggest that is the way the game is meant to be played by design, and doing so creates the...

The rules of the game lay out who gets to say what. The DM describes the environment (e.g. "There's a vase..."). The players describe what they want to do (e.g. "I smash the vase with my bare hands..."). The DM narrates the result (e.g. "The vase cracks and falls to pieces..."), sometimes...

I would ask them to clarify. My experience is that once I've asked someone a few times "How?" or words to that effect, they just include it in their action declarations going forward. The stick, then. If someone is playing a spontaneous or impetuous character, they're free to act as such...

We're talking about the game in the abstract, or at least I am. I don't actually care how your game specifically works or doesn't work. Does a given approach actually serve the desired goal is the question I'm examining. And, if it doesn't, what purpose does it serve to keep doing it? Speaking...

Why is it okay for the DM to say what the character does? That's the player's role in the game, not the DM's. You good with the player doing things that are in the DM's role? As well, I believe it was you who said that asking "How?" means that the player may now have reason to believe something...

It "suits characterization" to potentially create downstream conflict and the need to resolve that among the player and DM? I don't know why you keep saying things like this. I have no power to control what other people do. We're talking about how the game works at various tables. That is all.

The player's choice to make it more difficult to understand what their character is doing by being vague and noncommittal, encouraging the DM to play their character for them, only to see them object to what the DM established, and need to sort that out? What about that makes it a good approach...

Don't need to - the conflict is plain between what the DM described and what the player imagined but left undescribed. "No, wait, I don't want to touch it..." after the DM described the character as touching it is the conflict. That needs to be resolved - in this case by the player describing...

What happens if your player doesn't agree with what you described their own character as doing, which is what Bacon Bits suggested in the approach you endorsed? That is a conflict that has to be resolved before play can move forward. Or, you can avoid that discussion altogether by asking players...

I don't understand what you mean here. Which doesn't actually appear to serve your goals, and potentially creates additional areas for conflict as shown. You "win" D&D by creating an exciting, memorable tale and having fun together. So, yes, I believe there is a way to "win" D&D, and that...

...wherein they offer incentives and opportunities to "metagame" while expecting and demanding that the players don't do that. ...while not "metagaming" despite the DM presenting incentives and opportunities to do so. Hence, it's a test, and not at all aligned in my view with the goal of...

That method (1) has the DM playing the role of the player by deciding for the player what their own character does and (2) potentially breaks "immersion" so the DM and player can hash out what the character is actually doing, after the player objects to the DM taking over their character for...