Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 1417631" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>Actually i would say it is absolutely the Gms job to figure out the actions the character is intending to take and then to resolve them in game.Simple example: A character has been using his bow. The line breaks and things start getting messy. The player says "Ok, time for getting serious. Taldor moves up to the bad guy and hits him." He then moves his fig over to adjacent to a troll.I do not retort with gleee "taldor's bow breaks when you smack him over the head. bows are not good melee weapons you know, snicker."Instead i say "drawing your sword during the move action as a free action?"and he says "yup"I may even add "dropping your bow along the way?" Especially if it is a two handed weapon he is drawing.When you believe the intent was different than the statement and that it is simply a communication error and not a reversal, when you believe it is not a character thing but a player wording thing, or even are unsure, but are sticking to the letter of the law (so to speak) its hosing him or at least will likely be seen that way.Again, would you rather have your players worrying about their wording of actions or worrying about the troll and his henchman? Me, i go for the latter.uhh... Ok so why in the world would pandering to the player so that in the end both he and i understand what he was meaning to do be a problem? i am not in competition with them!!!I am not here to get them!!!Pouncing on every misstatement i can wont make the game more fun for them!!!Having them worry that I am waiting to pounce of a misspoken phrase or poor word choice wont help my game!!!I don't presume that they "made a bad decision and want to backtrack" in cases like the one we are discussing. Its much more likely IMX that it was a misspoken instruction. i find erring on the side of the players to create a much better atrmosphere. They get enough hand wringing, shpincter clenching excitement from seeing "their characters against my scenarios and challenges and NPCS" and i want them thinking about that as opposed to worrying about "Steve". heck, even with my player friendly, or pandering if you prefer, they still have good cause to call me "Stevil", and its not because i hang them up on word choice.I dont have to "assume" either way and more importantly i dont have to "assume" that the one least favoring the player is the right one and the one i will stick him with.I can, as my example shows, handle it better than that.Well, the player spent time, thought about it, and made the decision to forego an immediate action for a reactive one. It sounds like he did think carefully about it.What he did was, it seems likely to me, MISSPEAK, choose the wrong word when communicating that decision to the GM.there is a big difference.if you want your players to spend time and effort worryinf about their word choice when giving you instructions, treating every GM-player conversation like its a wish spell, and focusing their attention on YOU not the scenario, the npcs, or even the characters, then thats dead spot on reasoning.I want them "playing in my game" and not "playing a game against me." So i will disagree with that characterization.The lesson the players would learn from my example would be that I am not out to stick them and am working with them , as opposed to the lesson you want to teach them that they had better watch the precise wording of their instructions to you the GM or else pay the price.All in all, we seem to be not going to reach a consensus here. Our basic styles definitely differ a lot.[/QUOTE]

Verification