Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 9050067" data-attributes="member: 97077">Plenty of DMs in my experience have no problem with playing the characters for the players, so you're not alone. I prefer not to do that. I play the monsters, NPCs, and environment.Someone advocating for the first bit I quoted (&quot;You open the door and see a 20x20 foot room. In the middle is a porcelain vase on top of a small stone pillar. None of your characters notice it without searching, but the pillar and vase are trapped with a contact poison. Also, there's a concealed panel in the floor by the wall, but again, you'd have to search to find it. What do you do?&quot;) or expecting players to roleplay that they don't know there's a trap present even though the DM explicitly told them there was one is what I was referring to.Is anyone advocating either of those approaches? The threads gone on too long for me to go back and do research. Suffice it to say, if anyone was advocating for those, I would not find those approaches to be very effective or desirable.Perhaps you haven't caught up yet, but this has been talked about several times by myself and others. I don't care about &quot;immersion&quot; or &quot;metagaming.&quot; Clarifying questions are fine in my game, though they're fairly rare. What my approach does do is create a situation where it's not unusual for the DM to ask clarifying questions such that it tips the players off that something is up. That was the concern Lanefan had, and my approach obviates that problem by creating an environment where reasonable specificity is the norm. So if you do concern yourself with &quot;immersion&quot; and &quot;metagaming&quot; this approach will serve you well. For me, it's just a byproduct of the clear communication I seek.I would add that my group enjoys more than just a drink or two and we do play after work on Fridays. If we can say &quot;I smash the vase with my bare hands&quot; under those conditions, I'd wager just about anyone can. It certainly does not require perfection, just clear communication. Who knew a desire for clear communication would be so controversial?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="iserith, post: 9050067, member: 97077"] Plenty of DMs in my experience have no problem with playing the characters for the players, so you're not alone. I prefer not to do that. I play the monsters, NPCs, and environment. Someone advocating for the first bit I quoted ("You open the door and see a 20x20 foot room. In the middle is a porcelain vase on top of a small stone pillar. None of your characters notice it without searching, but the pillar and vase are trapped with a contact poison. Also, there's a concealed panel in the floor by the wall, but again, you'd have to search to find it. What do you do?") or expecting players to roleplay that they don't know there's a trap present even though the DM explicitly told them there was one is what I was referring to. Is anyone advocating either of those approaches? The threads gone on too long for me to go back and do research. Suffice it to say, if anyone was advocating for those, I would not find those approaches to be very effective or desirable. Perhaps you haven't caught up yet, but this has been talked about several times by myself and others. I don't care about "immersion" or "metagaming." Clarifying questions are fine in my game, though they're fairly rare. What my approach does do is create a situation where it's not unusual for the DM to ask clarifying questions such that it tips the players off that something is up. That was the concern Lanefan had, and my approach obviates that problem by creating an environment where reasonable specificity is the norm. So if you do concern yourself with "immersion" and "metagaming" this approach will serve you well. For me, it's just a byproduct of the clear communication I seek. I would add that my group enjoys more than just a drink or two and we do play after work on Fridays. If we can say "I smash the vase [I]with my bare hands" [/I]under those conditions, I'd wager just about anyone can. It certainly does not require perfection, just clear communication. Who knew a desire for clear communication would be so controversial? [/QUOTE]

Verification