Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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
Do you let PC's just *break* objects?
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="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 9048060" data-attributes="member: 6779196"><p>The “I try to __ by __” template isn’t necessary, it’s just an easy format to use if you’re unsure whether an action declaration would include both goal and approach or not. You <em>could</em> phrase the message declaration that way if you wanted to - e.g. “I try to send him the message [whatever] by casting the message spell.” It’d be a stilted way to express that, but it would convey the same information, which as I’ve said repeatedly in these discussions is the only thing I care about, not the specific verbiage. That’s why I phrased the recommendation the way I did: If you <em>can</em> phrase your action in the form “I try to __ by<strong> __</strong>,” it’s almost certainly a complete action declaration. You don’t have to actually phrase it that way if you don’t want to, but if you <em>could</em> do so, it probably contains all the information I need to adjudicate the action.</p><p></p><p>I suspect you’re right that it’s not vastly different from the way you run your games. Probably the most obvious difference is that I love dungeons, which I know are not your cup of tea. I strongly favor what I call location-based adventures, where the focus is mainly on exploring a dangerous location like a dungeon and the storytelling, such as it is, is largely environmental. This as opposed to what I call event-based games, where the focus is on an unfolding sequence of events, more akin to an ongoing narrative featuring the PCs.</p><p></p><p>In terms of differences in technique though, there’s a thing I’ve seen a lot of DMs do, not sure if you do this: a player will declare an action in pretty vague terms (sometimes even just saying “I make a __ check), the DM will call for a roll, and then the DM will narrate the action in more detail based on the results of the roll. That’s something that I specifically avoid; I prefer for the details to be established by the player before I call for a roll, and in any post-roll narration I do describes the effects of the declared action on the environment, avoiding adding or altering details to the character’s action as the player described it. That’s something that’s very important to me, I want the characters’ actions to be under the sole purview of the player, and do everything I can to limit my narration strictly to the environment and non-player characters and monsters within it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 9048060, member: 6779196"] The “I try to __ by __” template isn’t necessary, it’s just an easy format to use if you’re unsure whether an action declaration would include both goal and approach or not. You [I]could[/I] phrase the message declaration that way if you wanted to - e.g. “I try to send him the message [whatever] by casting the message spell.” It’d be a stilted way to express that, but it would convey the same information, which as I’ve said repeatedly in these discussions is the only thing I care about, not the specific verbiage. That’s why I phrased the recommendation the way I did: If you [I]can[/I] phrase your action in the form “I try to __ by[B] __[/B],” it’s almost certainly a complete action declaration. You don’t have to actually phrase it that way if you don’t want to, but if you [I]could[/I] do so, it probably contains all the information I need to adjudicate the action. I suspect you’re right that it’s not vastly different from the way you run your games. Probably the most obvious difference is that I love dungeons, which I know are not your cup of tea. I strongly favor what I call location-based adventures, where the focus is mainly on exploring a dangerous location like a dungeon and the storytelling, such as it is, is largely environmental. This as opposed to what I call event-based games, where the focus is on an unfolding sequence of events, more akin to an ongoing narrative featuring the PCs. In terms of differences in technique though, there’s a thing I’ve seen a lot of DMs do, not sure if you do this: a player will declare an action in pretty vague terms (sometimes even just saying “I make a __ check), the DM will call for a roll, and then the DM will narrate the action in more detail based on the results of the roll. That’s something that I specifically avoid; I prefer for the details to be established by the player before I call for a roll, and in any post-roll narration I do describes the effects of the declared action on the environment, avoiding adding or altering details to the character’s action as the player described it. That’s something that’s very important to me, I want the characters’ actions to be under the sole purview of the player, and do everything I can to limit my narration strictly to the environment and non-player characters and monsters within it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do you let PC's just *break* objects?
Top