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: 9069588" data-attributes="member: 6779196">Adequate for what? Again, you seem to be operating under the baseline assumption that making a check is a desirable thing, and that an action description must be adequate for one to be earned. This is not the case in my games.Yes, of course you’re still playing D&D.I ask that players clearly state both what they want to accomplish and what their character does to try to accomplish it when they declare an action. That’s not a minimum requirement for potential success; indeed, an action that includes both of those things may or may not have a chance of success, may or may not have a chance of failure, and may or may not have meaningful stakes. That’s why I ask that players include both, because without them, I can’t determine whether or not it can succeed or fail and has consequences. If that’s a “minimum requirement” for anything, it’s a requirement for a declaration of action, not for a chance of success.To be more precise, I base that judgement not on how they describe the action, but on how suited the action is to the goal.It’s not a matter of trying to convince me of something. It’s a matter of trying to select an approach with minimum risk of and/or stakes for failure.The phrasing isn’t what I care about, the framing is. You’re presenting a scenario where the players want to make rolls and to do so they must convince me to let them do so, by describing their actions “adequately” (whatever that means). The reality is simply that we are following the play pattern described in the how to play rules - I describe the environment, the players describe what they want to do, and I determine the results, potentially calling for a die roll to resolve any uncertainty in the results, and then describe the results, restarting the loop in the process.</blockquote>

Verification