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="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7811013" data-attributes="member: 6802765"><p>Thanks for letting me know I wasn't clear! I'll try to answer your question and explain my point differently.</p><p></p><p>In an open-ended game like D&D, I don't see how it would be possible for a DM to always be able to predict what the PCs will find important to be able to include it in an upfront scene description. Sometimes a PC will have an idea the DM didn't consider (and therefore didn't include all the relevant information for evaluating that plan), or it could be the PCs take the entire scene in a completely unexpected direction (rendering moot the DM's analysis of what information is important). I wouldn't classify either situation as a "failure to properly present the scene" on the part of the DM.</p><p></p><p>As a trivial example, a PC could deliberately change the topic of conversation in a non-confrontatinal social scene and watch for whether the new topic appears to make the NPC uncomfortable. Since the scene had been framed as non-confrontational, the DM hasn't yet had a reason (or opportunity) to telegraph that the NPC is/isn't concealing their emotional state, so the PC doesn't have anything to unique to this situation to structure their action declaration around. Accordingly, they'll probably go with something generic when describing their approach, like "... by watching their body language for signs of discomfort".</p><p></p><p>On the one hand, the PC declaring a goal (find out if NPC has knowledge of topic x) and an approach (by changing the topic of the conversation to x and watching their body language for signs of discomfort) seems to be exactly the sort of thing the PC should be able to do in Goal and Approach. On the other hand, the described approach isn't specific to some unique detail telegraphed by the DM (because the DM didn't know that such would be relevant or have an opportunity to include it before the player altered the scene) and would apply to just about any similar situation.</p><p></p><p>My question is, do you consider permitting an action declaration with a generic Approach to be in keeping with Goal and Approach as you see it? If yes, how is permitting a generic Approach functionally different than "pushing the Insight button"? If no, does that mean that under G&A certain types of actions (e.g. reading the emotional state of an NPC) are only available to the PCs when the DM accurately predicted that such actions would be important to them and included appropriate telegraphs permitting situation-specific Approach declarations?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 7811013, member: 6802765"] Thanks for letting me know I wasn't clear! I'll try to answer your question and explain my point differently. In an open-ended game like D&D, I don't see how it would be possible for a DM to always be able to predict what the PCs will find important to be able to include it in an upfront scene description. Sometimes a PC will have an idea the DM didn't consider (and therefore didn't include all the relevant information for evaluating that plan), or it could be the PCs take the entire scene in a completely unexpected direction (rendering moot the DM's analysis of what information is important). I wouldn't classify either situation as a "failure to properly present the scene" on the part of the DM. As a trivial example, a PC could deliberately change the topic of conversation in a non-confrontatinal social scene and watch for whether the new topic appears to make the NPC uncomfortable. Since the scene had been framed as non-confrontational, the DM hasn't yet had a reason (or opportunity) to telegraph that the NPC is/isn't concealing their emotional state, so the PC doesn't have anything to unique to this situation to structure their action declaration around. Accordingly, they'll probably go with something generic when describing their approach, like "... by watching their body language for signs of discomfort". On the one hand, the PC declaring a goal (find out if NPC has knowledge of topic x) and an approach (by changing the topic of the conversation to x and watching their body language for signs of discomfort) seems to be exactly the sort of thing the PC should be able to do in Goal and Approach. On the other hand, the described approach isn't specific to some unique detail telegraphed by the DM (because the DM didn't know that such would be relevant or have an opportunity to include it before the player altered the scene) and would apply to just about any similar situation. My question is, do you consider permitting an action declaration with a generic Approach to be in keeping with Goal and Approach as you see it? If yes, how is permitting a generic Approach functionally different than "pushing the Insight button"? If no, does that mean that under G&A certain types of actions (e.g. reading the emotional state of an NPC) are only available to the PCs when the DM accurately predicted that such actions would be important to them and included appropriate telegraphs permitting situation-specific Approach declarations? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top