Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 8199004" data-attributes="member: 6921763">Shorthand is not specific enough for my table.&nbsp; That does not mean that accepting shorthand is wrong for your table.This sounds great - just like how play proceeds at my table, too.&nbsp; Common ground!This is a point I've seen you consistently misunderstand (hopefully it's not &quot;misrepresent&quot;) in these discussions.&nbsp; To reiterate:&nbsp; No one is requiring excess fluff at my table or at tables who play similarly.&nbsp; A player just needs to tell me what their character is trying to accomplish in the game world.&nbsp; Could be first person, could be third person.&nbsp; Be reasonably specific with the approach and goal and I, as the DM, will adjudicate accordingly.&nbsp; For my table (again, I'm not saying for your table or anyone else's table here), this is a more engaging and satisfying way to play than &quot;I have Arcana and History&quot;.&nbsp; Another misunderstanding (again, hopefully not a misrepresentation) if that is how you picture my table.&nbsp; At my table players attempt to frame their PCs' actions in ways that will just succeed or in ways that will favor their strong skills or in ways that favor them getting inspiration for playing to their traits/ideal/bond/flaws.&nbsp; They are not trying to &quot;avoid rolling the dice at all costs&quot;.&nbsp; If you are getting &quot;5E works better if you do it my way&quot; from anything I said, you are grossly misrepresenting what I'm saying.If someone reading is so inclined, I encourage them to try out the suggestions that helped me.&nbsp; I'm not sure why that is at all controversial or offensive.&nbsp; Just take it or leave it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swarmkeeper, post: 8199004, member: 6921763"] Shorthand is not specific enough for [I]my [/I]table. That does not mean that accepting shorthand is wrong for [I]your[/I] table. This sounds great - just like how play proceeds at [I]my[/I] table, too. Common ground! This is a point I've seen you consistently misunderstand (hopefully it's not "misrepresent") in these discussions. To reiterate: No one is requiring excess fluff at [I]my[/I] table or at tables who play similarly. A player just needs to tell me what their character is trying to accomplish in the game world. Could be first person, could be third person. Be reasonably specific with the approach and goal and I, as the DM, will adjudicate accordingly. For [I]my [/I]table (again, I'm not saying for [I]your[/I] table or [I]anyone else's [/I]table here), this is a more engaging and satisfying way to play than "I have Arcana and History". Another misunderstanding (again, hopefully not a misrepresentation) if that is how you picture [I]my [/I]table. At [I]my [/I]table players attempt to frame their PCs' actions in ways that will just succeed or in ways that will favor their strong skills or in ways that favor them getting inspiration for playing to their traits/ideal/bond/flaws. They are not trying to "avoid rolling the dice at all costs". If you are getting "5E works better if you do it my way" from anything I said, you are grossly misrepresenting what I'm saying. If someone reading is so inclined, I encourage them to try out the suggestions that helped me. I'm not sure why that is at all controversial or offensive. Just take it or leave it. [/QUOTE]

Verification