Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9047945" data-attributes="member: 6779196">It’s cool, sorry if I came across as obtuse, I just feel like the benefit of asking for additional clarity was self-evident in the case under discussion in this thread, in which the OP explicitly stated that the player may have had a different goal that the DM assumed or forgotten to mention details of their approach, and that those facts were the specific reasons they would rule the way they do.To your Message example, “I cast message and say [whatever]” is a complete action declaration in my mind. It clearly communicates what you want to happen (for the target of the spell to receive the intended message) and what your character does to try and make that happen (cast the message spell). No further detail is necessary. Likewise, in the example that started this whole tangent, the action declaration “I try to destroy the warship with one punch” is also a complete action declaration in my mind. It includes both a goal (destroy the warship) and an approach (punch it once). That’s everything I need to know to determine how to resolve the action. It would, at my table, fail without a roll of any kind being called for, because at least in the kinds of worlds I like to run in D&D, even the strongest playable character would not be able to destroy a warship by punching it a single time. Maybe it would be more plausible in a game using the genre conventions of superhero comics, but not my D&D games.For an example of an action declaration that isn’t complete to my mind, look at the “I smash the vase” one from earlier in this thread. As I said in my response to that post, that tells me what the player wants to happen as a result of their action (for the vase to be broken), but not what their character is doing to try and accomplish that. Are they picking it up and throwing it against the wall? Are they pushing it over and allowing it to fall to the floor? Are they bringing the pommel of their sword down on it? Are they squeezing it between their hands as hard as they can? The reason this information matters is that it might be relevant in how I resolve the action. For example, maybe the vase contains valuables that could be damaged or lost when it’s thrown. Or maybe it’s coated with a contact poison*. Or maybe it’s sitting on a pressure-sensitive plate like the idol in the opening scene of raiders of the lost arc. There are all sorts of reasons I might need to know how the character is going about trying to smash the vase in order to determine the possible results of that action and make the best call as to what rules (if any) need to be invoked to resolve any uncertainty in the possible results.And as [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] pointed out, in a post that you liked, if I were to accept “I smash the vase” alone as a general rule and only asked for additional detail when it’s relevant, asking for additional detail would indicate to the player that it is relevant, and may impact their decision making. Maybe they were imagining squeezing the vase between their hands, but the fact that I asked them how they try to smash it makes them suspicious, so instead they decide to nudge it off its platform with a 10-foot pole instead. And certainly if I simply assume how they go about trying to smash the vase, there’s a high likelihood that the player will take issue with my assumptions, especially if the action has any negative outcomes they think they might have been able to avoid had they gone about it a different way (whether or not they had any action intentions of doing it in the hypothetical way they imagine would have prevented those consequences).Better, in my mind, to make the general rule that action declarations must always include both goal and approach. Excessive detail is not necessary - as we’ve seen “I cast message and say [whatever]” and “I try to destroy the warship in one punch” are perfectly sufficient action declarations by this standard. The suggestion I give if anyone is unsure whether an action declaration includes the necessary information is, if you can phrase it as “I try to __ by __,” it will in almost all cases be sufficient. And the nice thing is, by setting this standard, I can always ask for clarification if needed, without making the player think there’s something specific about this action that they need to be cautious of. Because that information is a requirement for all actions.*For the record, I don’t actually use contact poison as a trap, because it doesn’t make a lick of sense. It’s just a convenient example of a reason it might be relevant whether or not a character touches a vase.</blockquote>

Verification