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: 7999835" data-attributes="member: 6779196">I haven’t been seeing a desired action in your examples, only desired outcome and proficiency. In those examples, either the DM would need to describe what the character does after the roll is made, or the in-fiction action would be left ambiguous. Going back to your earlier example:Assuming the player’s action declaration was not “followed by in character role play, 3rd person narration, or other fiction,” the player has given the DM no information about what their character is doing. I can glean that their desired outcome is to get through, and that they want to apply their Persuasion proficiency to the check, but not the in-fiction action that is meant to get them there. “Charm him” is not reasonably specific. So when the DM says “this happens,” either “this” must include the missing information about what the player’s character did, or the action must be left nonspecific.The approach I associate with 3e is for the DM to include the information about what the character did in their description of what happens, usually referring to the result of the die roll to help them make up a fitting narrative. For example on a high roll the DM might say something like “you walk up to the guard, stare deeply into his eyes, and whisper to him how much you’d really appreciate if he let you through. He blushes and fumbles with his keys as he unlocks the door.” On a low roll the DM might say something like “well you thought you were being sexy, but it just comes off as desperate as you clumsily fiddle with the buttons on his uniform. He stands resolute and refuses to let you through.” That’s not something I generally enjoy in D&D, I would prefer the player to be the only one to describe their own character’s actions, but moreover it can clash with some of 5e’s systems. For example, a common grievance you hear from DMs is that players never remember to spend inspiration. You’ll notice that the only consequence for the low roll in the example was not getting through the door and maybe looking a little silly, but nothing was really lost. In my experience these kinds of low-risk rolls happen a lot under this style of play, which can make it difficult for players to assess when stakes are sufficiently high that they should expend a limited resource to mitigate the risk of failure. Under the style of play that I believe 5e encourages, rolls always come with a risk, so it’s much easier to make that assessment. Are you making a roll? Then something is at risk, and it’s probably worth it to spend inspiration.</blockquote>

Verification