Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7810501" data-attributes="member: 6795602"><p>Yep, everyone does that. If that's all you mean by goal and approach then every game is a goal and approach game. </p><p></p><p>I think a player saying: I want to determine if the NPC is lying would satisfy the above rules. (They Desribed what they wanted to do afterall). I also find it fascinating that in the rules you cited above that there is no rule stating the player must describe how they try to do what they want to do.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well up until now I've lumped your sides particular way of having a player describe what they want to do and how you determine the results of said description under the goal and approach methodology. Calling this out may be helpful though as now it's more apparent the specific details I'm making a case against.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not specific though. The player has only conveyed that he attempts to play with some bat guano, makes some gestures and says some words to try and make a fireball appear. Now the rules are clear that if he does all those things then the fireball appears. However, the DM determines what happens in the fiction. So if it's raining and the bat guano might slip out of his hand (wet poo is inherently slippery...) then the result of his actions may not be an auto success. Possibly it's a dex check to hold onto the poo. That is how your playstyle is supposed to work right?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed, but I try to read the NPC to determine if he's trustworthy is a description of the character's activity. It may not be a description you deem "good enough" but it's a description of his fictional action nonetheless.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yep, that's where being reasonably non-ambiguous comes in.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly, under this playstyle specific details need provided so the DM can determine the outcome. It's still amazing you believe fireball is somehow specific enough, but trying to determine if the NPC is lying is somehow more ambiguous. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> That's what you say you do but you are so inconsistent with it. You act like I'm crazy for expecting that style when fully followed to have you asking the player how their character performs their spell components. Why wouldn't you need to know how they are casting fireball. Why is ambiguously playing with bat guano and ambiguously waving your warms around and ambiguously saying a few words not enough ambiguity to have the player specify how they are casting the spell?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7810501, member: 6795602"] Yep, everyone does that. If that's all you mean by goal and approach then every game is a goal and approach game. I think a player saying: I want to determine if the NPC is lying would satisfy the above rules. (They Desribed what they wanted to do afterall). I also find it fascinating that in the rules you cited above that there is no rule stating the player must describe how they try to do what they want to do. Well up until now I've lumped your sides particular way of having a player describe what they want to do and how you determine the results of said description under the goal and approach methodology. Calling this out may be helpful though as now it's more apparent the specific details I'm making a case against. That's not specific though. The player has only conveyed that he attempts to play with some bat guano, makes some gestures and says some words to try and make a fireball appear. Now the rules are clear that if he does all those things then the fireball appears. However, the DM determines what happens in the fiction. So if it's raining and the bat guano might slip out of his hand (wet poo is inherently slippery...) then the result of his actions may not be an auto success. Possibly it's a dex check to hold onto the poo. That is how your playstyle is supposed to work right? Agreed, but I try to read the NPC to determine if he's trustworthy is a description of the character's activity. It may not be a description you deem "good enough" but it's a description of his fictional action nonetheless. Yep, that's where being reasonably non-ambiguous comes in. Exactly, under this playstyle specific details need provided so the DM can determine the outcome. It's still amazing you believe fireball is somehow specific enough, but trying to determine if the NPC is lying is somehow more ambiguous. That's what you say you do but you are so inconsistent with it. You act like I'm crazy for expecting that style when fully followed to have you asking the player how their character performs their spell components. Why wouldn't you need to know how they are casting fireball. Why is ambiguously playing with bat guano and ambiguously waving your warms around and ambiguously saying a few words not enough ambiguity to have the player specify how they are casting the spell? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top