Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Swarmkeeper" data-source="post: 9052783" data-attributes="member: 6921763">To expound on your statement, I'd say &quot;better&quot; in the sense that 1) it gives the player more narrative control over how their PC is acting, 2) helps minimize any ambiguity as to what is occurring in the fiction with regards to said PC, and 3) adds flavor to the story from a participant other than the DM in this shared story-telling experience that we all love. Sure.&nbsp; More than good enough most of the time for certain playstyles.The detail need not be belabored (unless the player really, really wants to invoke Tofflich, I suppose).&nbsp; The goal and approach method just needs reasonable specificity.&nbsp; I'd even argue that your latter example is unreasonable specificity, if that is something a DM at some imagined table is requiring.&nbsp; &quot;I smash the vase with my axe&quot; is simple and perfectly fine.&nbsp; The goal?&nbsp; Smashing the vase.&nbsp; The approach?&nbsp; Using their axe.&nbsp; It's a succinct piece of story shared by the player.&nbsp; Now the DM can adjudicate accordingly.&nbsp; But, of course, this has all been said before.Agreed.&nbsp; At our table, and I'd argue according to the rules/guidance of 5e*, the player is fully in charge of roleplaying their PC (PHB 185:&nbsp; &quot;determining how [their] character thinks, acts, and talks.&quot;)&nbsp; The DM is in charge of determining whether said actions of PC succeed, fail, or require some kind of roll.&nbsp; When I get to play, I'm not a fan of the DM narrating my PC's actions (which is very different from narrating the results of my PC's actions, which is the DM's job.)&nbsp; When I DM, I try my best to avoid any statements that give the impression that I'm controlling/playing the PCs. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />* I know you are coming at this from the lens of your modded 1e game, which I appreciate since it provides a helpful vantage point, IMO</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Swarmkeeper, post: 9052783, member: 6921763"] To expound on your statement, I'd say "better" in the sense that 1) it gives the player more narrative control over how their PC is acting, 2) helps minimize any ambiguity as to what is occurring in the fiction with regards to said PC, and 3) adds flavor to the story from a participant other than the DM in this shared story-telling experience that we all love. Sure. More than good enough most of the time for certain playstyles. The detail need not be belabored (unless the player really, really wants to invoke Tofflich, I suppose). The goal and approach method just needs reasonable specificity. I'd even argue that your latter example is [I]un[/I]reasonable specificity, if that is something a DM at some imagined table is requiring. "I smash the vase with my axe" is simple and perfectly fine. The goal? Smashing the vase. The approach? Using their axe. It's a succinct piece of story shared by the player. Now the DM can adjudicate accordingly. But, of course, this has all been said before. Agreed. At our table, and I'd argue according to the rules/guidance of 5e*, the player is fully in charge of roleplaying their PC (PHB 185: "determining how [their] character thinks, acts, and talks.") The DM is in charge of determining whether said actions of PC succeed, fail, or require some kind of roll. When I get to play, I'm not a fan of the DM narrating my PC's actions (which is very different from narrating the [I]results [/I]of my PC's actions, which is the DM's job.) When I DM, I try my best to avoid any statements that give the impression that I'm controlling/playing the PCs. :) [SIZE=3]* I know you are coming at this from the lens of your modded 1e game, which I appreciate since it provides a helpful vantage point, IMO[/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification