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
Critical Role Episode #26 - spoilers!
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="Bawylie" data-source="post: 7465612" data-attributes="member: 6776133"><p>As to your first question, I would have asked the player to clarify what they wanted to do and how they go about making that happen. Until I know both of those things, I don’t know what rules I ought to be applying. I might even need further clarification. </p><p></p><p>A player might say, “I feebly attack the enemy with my sword because of my deep fear.” Now ok that’s all well and good. But I need to know if the player is more interested in the attack or in portraying the fear, before I know if I want an attack roll, or perhaps a wisdom save, or maybe if I just want to narrate what happens next. But what I would not do is just let the player pick what rule resolves the situation. </p><p></p><p>I might skip a die roll and give a quick “your half-hearted, terrified assault is effortlessly knocked aside by the enemy as they bear down on you. What do you do?” In which case I’m giving them the portrayal of fear-via-feeble attack as a freebie and then giving them an action they can take “for realsies.” </p><p></p><p>Which sort of gets to your second question. I would absolutely let the player declare their own actions. That’s their job. And I have no problem with a player making a sub-optimal choice. Happens all the time anyway - faced with a tough situation, players don’t always make good choices. But I don’t tell them “No, you don’t pick that, you pick a better option.” They’ve got free reign to portray their character and decide its actions. This includes the freedom to be right, wrong, different, weird, normal, abnormal, or whatever. But they can’t adjudicate their own actions, they can’t decide to make an ability check. They can take an action that might require one, but they can’t just skip to “I roll a 17 strength check so X happens” just the same as they can’t say “I attack with disadvantage.” </p><p></p><p>I mean heck, what if, unbeknownst to the player, they have a secret advantage? If I tell the player they can’t roll with disadvantage, or to roll only 1d20 (bc the secret advantage cancels the disadvantage), what then? </p><p></p><p>Corner case for sure. But to the point of roles. DM sets up a scenario/challenge, Players make decisions to change to scenario/overcome the challenge, DMs adjudicate those decisions. </p><p></p><p>(It’s perfectly fine by me if a group doesn’t have the same roles I do. But I find I get like zero rules lawyer arguments this way, versus when I let players pick what rules they want to apply. And since that means more play time at the table, that’s how we roll).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bawylie, post: 7465612, member: 6776133"] As to your first question, I would have asked the player to clarify what they wanted to do and how they go about making that happen. Until I know both of those things, I don’t know what rules I ought to be applying. I might even need further clarification. A player might say, “I feebly attack the enemy with my sword because of my deep fear.” Now ok that’s all well and good. But I need to know if the player is more interested in the attack or in portraying the fear, before I know if I want an attack roll, or perhaps a wisdom save, or maybe if I just want to narrate what happens next. But what I would not do is just let the player pick what rule resolves the situation. I might skip a die roll and give a quick “your half-hearted, terrified assault is effortlessly knocked aside by the enemy as they bear down on you. What do you do?” In which case I’m giving them the portrayal of fear-via-feeble attack as a freebie and then giving them an action they can take “for realsies.” Which sort of gets to your second question. I would absolutely let the player declare their own actions. That’s their job. And I have no problem with a player making a sub-optimal choice. Happens all the time anyway - faced with a tough situation, players don’t always make good choices. But I don’t tell them “No, you don’t pick that, you pick a better option.” They’ve got free reign to portray their character and decide its actions. This includes the freedom to be right, wrong, different, weird, normal, abnormal, or whatever. But they can’t adjudicate their own actions, they can’t decide to make an ability check. They can take an action that might require one, but they can’t just skip to “I roll a 17 strength check so X happens” just the same as they can’t say “I attack with disadvantage.” I mean heck, what if, unbeknownst to the player, they have a secret advantage? If I tell the player they can’t roll with disadvantage, or to roll only 1d20 (bc the secret advantage cancels the disadvantage), what then? Corner case for sure. But to the point of roles. DM sets up a scenario/challenge, Players make decisions to change to scenario/overcome the challenge, DMs adjudicate those decisions. (It’s perfectly fine by me if a group doesn’t have the same roles I do. But I find I get like zero rules lawyer arguments this way, versus when I let players pick what rules they want to apply. And since that means more play time at the table, that’s how we roll). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Critical Role Episode #26 - spoilers!
Top