Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7999801" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I’m not aware of any podcasts or streams run in this way, but it’d be something to look out for. I know iserith did an actual play with the intent of teaching his techniques way back during either the late stages of the 5e playtest or the early days after its release, though I think that was in text? And I imagine he would probably not be entirely satisfied these days with the way he ran it back then. Also I doubt it exists anymore since the WotC forums went down. I also remember during the playtest the developers did a series, on YouTube I think, of them playing through a modified version of some famous module or another with the playtest rules. I don’t recall if the way Mearls DMed that was consistent with what I view as the style 5e suggests or not, but I think either way it would be very enlightening to go back and watch to see how the folks who were making the game actually handled it at the time. I dunno, but if I ever do find a game that resembles my preferred style I’ll gladly share a link.As I said in my response to [USER=7016699]@prabe[/USER], I feel like painting all approaches that might fall under the umbrella of “intimidation” doesn’t leave enough room for nuance. Threatening to kill the goblin if he doesn’t talk and threatening to tickle him if he doesn’t could both reasonably be described as intimidation, but I don’t see them both having the same likelihood of success. Likewise, offering to protect him from his leader if he rats her out and asking pretty please with a cherry on top could both be considered persuasion but one seems much more likely to be effective. Deciding that Intimidation is going to be easier that Persuasion without knowing how the character is attempting to intimidate or persuade the goblin just doesn’t make sense to me. Unless of course you’re leaving the specifics of how the player does it undefined until after the roll has been made, and using the result to inform your narration of what happens. That’s the method I tend to associate with 3e, and it works perfectly well, it just isn’t what I prefer.Yeah, I get that concern. I just don’t think it’s as big a problem as people often worry it is. One of my regular players is in fact autistic, one has tics that make most social interaction difficult, and one has serious social anxiety, (and one is a professional actor!) but they’re all able to follow my narration and describe goals and approaches with a reasonable degree of specificity. As we are all playing in good faith, there is no need for games of trying to guess how the DM thinks, simply thinking about the world as real and functioning under consistent logic, and acting according to that understanding is perfectly sufficient.Despite all the hand-wringing about Matt Mercer effects and what not, I actually think critical role is a pretty decent example of a fairly typical, if especially well-acted 5e game looks like. At least in terms of technique. Matt gets pretty descriptive, and the players get way into their characters, but fundamentally the process is pretty much the same as what I see at most 5e tables. And it’s ironically the process I associate with 3e and 4e. I don’t think most 5e players are familiar with the style that my interpretation of the 5e rules has lead me to, or even conceive of it as an option, which is why it can be so difficult to express and these threads always get so long. And I think that’s too bad, because it’s a fun way to play. It probably wouldn’t be for everyone, but I find that a lot of commonly-expressed problems DMs have with the 5e system cease to be problems under it.We could try. The thing is, I usually find these examples too lacking in context to give adequate answers. I try my best, but a lot of unspoken assumptions always go into such examples, and one usually has to make a lot of other assumptions to answer, so we end up representing these nebulous versions of what we do that don’t really accurately reflect our play experiences, and then we end up picking each others’ examples apart and nobody walks away with any better an understanding of the others’ positions. I’m willing to give it another try, but I don’t think it’s likely to be very useful to anyone.</blockquote>

Verification