NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 7810599" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🙄" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" title="Face with rolling eyes    :rolling_eyes:" data-shortname=":rolling_eyes:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />The whole point of me breaking it down was to express that what has been getting referred to as “goal and approach” involves multiple, specific techniques employed in service to that goal, only one of which is asking that the players describe their actions in terms of both goal and approach. Please do try to read my comments holistically.I agree! However, it does not give me enough information as DM to fulfill my part of that process; determining the results of what the player said they want to do. I either need to call for a dice roll, or to ask them to tell me what their character is doing.Hey, what do you know? A goal (play with some bat guano, makes some gestures and says some words) and an approach (to try and make a fireball appear.) Exactly the components our technique requires. Any more than that is just descriptive detail, which can be fun, but is not necessary.QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7810501, member: 6795602"]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?</blockquote>Sure, that might happen, I guess. But if that’s the case, I don’t need more descriptive detail to determine whether or not that happens. That’s also not something I’ve ever done, or can ever imagine myself doing, in a game.QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 7810501, member: 6795602"]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.[/quote]No, that’s a goal. That tells me what the player wants to happen (determine if the NPC is trustworthy), not what their character is doing to make it happen. I’m guessing “try to read” is the thing you’re identifying as the approach here, but it doesn’t actually convey any information about the activity being performed.If you don’t understand how “manipulating bat guano with my free hand while saying the magic words and pointing at the spot I want the spell to originate from” is more specific than “try to read the NPC,” I don’t know how to help you. The difference is obvious to me.I can imagine how it might seem inconsistent if you thought the key factor was descriptive detail. But it’s not. The key factor is clarity. There is a very specific set of hand gestures, magic words, and things done with the materials/foci that result in the effects of the fireball spell. If you say, “I’m casting fireball,” it is clear that you are doing those specific words and gestures. What, precisely, those words and gestures are is just “fluff;” potentially entertaining, but not needed for me to understand what your action is. On the other hand, there are many ways to “read someone.” Observing micro-expressions, listening for vocal fluctuations, observing body language just to name a few. Each might convey different information about a person’s emotional and mental state, and none of which are foolproof methods of detecting lies. So, if you say, “I try to read him to see if he’s lying,” that is less clear than when you say “I cast fireball.” Additionally, resolving an action like that requires more judgment on my part than resolving a spell, because there are not specific instructions for how to resolve it like there are with fireball. So I don’t think it’s unreasonable for the standard of clarity to be a bit higher.[/QUOTE]

Verification