Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8278439" data-attributes="member: 6779196">“I try to open the door by picking the lock” is a perfectly reasonable degree of specificity in my opinion. I don’t expect players to know how to pick locks, nor do I know myself beyond the very basic concept. As long as the fiction is clear and reasonably specific, the precise details don’t need to be delved into.I don’t think anyone is calling anyone a bad GM.Nowhere in the 5e rules that I’m aware of is the DM invited to describe the PCs’ actions. Nor should it, in my opinion. The players get control over only one thing, the DM shouldn’t be encroaching on that.The DM in this example is not filling their role as laid out in the How to Play rules. The DM is meant to describe the environment, which doesn’t seem to be happening here. Then the players describe what they want to do, which your example player does seem to be doing the best they can at when given next to nothing to work with. Then the DM is meant to describe the results of that action, calling for a roll to help determine the results if necessary. Your example DM seems to call for a roll but provide no actual description of the results. Finally, the DM is meant to start the pattern back over from step 1, describing the environment again, accounting for how it has changed as a result of the players’ actions. Your example DM doesn’t do this at all.So, yes, if the DM fails to fulfill 3/4 of their role as laid out by the rules, the results do indeed tend to be quite boring.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Charlaquin, post: 8278439, member: 6779196"] “I try to open the door by picking the lock” is a perfectly reasonable degree of specificity in my opinion. I don’t expect players to know how to pick locks, nor do I know myself beyond the very basic concept. As long as the fiction is clear and [I]reasonably[/I] specific, the precise details don’t need to be delved into. I don’t think anyone is calling anyone a bad GM. Nowhere in the 5e rules that I’m aware of is the DM invited to describe the PCs’ actions. Nor should it, in my opinion. The players get control over only one thing, the DM shouldn’t be encroaching on that. The DM in this example is not filling their role as laid out in the How to Play rules. The DM is meant to [I]describe the environment[/I], which doesn’t seem to be happening here. Then the players describe what they want to do, which your example player does seem to be doing the best they can at when given next to nothing to work with. Then the DM is meant to describe the results of that action, calling for a roll to help determine the results if necessary. Your example DM seems to call for a roll but provide no actual description of the results. Finally, the DM is meant to start the pattern back over from step 1, describing the environment again, accounting for how it has changed as a result of the players’ actions. Your example DM doesn’t do this at all. So, yes, if the DM fails to fulfill 3/4 of their role as laid out by the rules, the results do indeed tend to be quite boring. [/QUOTE]

Verification