How Exacting do you want your players/DM to be?

[Bront]

What I mean by this:

Is the question "Is the Door Locked" acceptable? Or do you want someone to specificly say "I'm going to check and see if the door is locked" or even get into detail about how?

Do you wait for people to give you exact ideas of where they're going and what they're doing (as in "Bront heads for the nearest exit")? Or is implying it by what they say ok (having said goodbye to the inkeeper, Bront is obviously leaving now)?

How much detail do you require from your players before you determine their actions? How much detail do you want to have to give as a player? How much detail do you want from your GM? How is this different in a play by post/e-mail game vs a face to face game? Particularly, how do you temper when to move on in a scene?

I ask because I've had issues in some PbP games where I've been waiting on details from players who conversely think they're waiting on me to continue on, and it has disrupted play. I personaly prefer to get a lot of detail from my players about what they're doing, or even a hierarchy of "if this then that" statements so I don't have to force things on or assume any actions by players.

On the other end, I like a GM who is good about the details I give, and wants as much detail as possable to understand my actions to their full extent. I don't want a GM misunderstanding my intent, as that can result in bad experiences and also degrade the required trust in a GM to Player relationship.

 

[dvvega]

It would depend on the group I am running. You can quickly assess a group's desire for exacting description after a session or two.

I've had groups that really liked to roleplay things like checking out doors and sneaking around furniture. This gave me the impetus to place traps and so forth in interesting ways to give them a reward for their careful searches and so on.

However on the flip side if you allow short descriptives like "Is the door locked" and then at one time you ask exactly how they are checking the door you're going to give away that there's a trap.

What I do most of the time is let them say whatever they wish ... so if the player says "is the door locked?" I assume that they check it. If it is a Rogue type I give them a spot check to see if they notice that the door may or may not be trapped.

That way players will learn that just saying something in short form may lead to problems.

 

[Ambrus]

As a player I've learned that it's best never to leave anything to chance, or a DM's whim. Being vague or careless about stating intended actions can lead to accidental or intentional misunderstandings. I'm not saying that every DM is out to screw their players, but we've probably all encountered the odd DM who sadistically enjoys throwing his players into hot water when given the opportunity to freely interpret their actions: "Well, you didn't say you were collecting the dragon's hoard before you started the trip back to town..." or "You didn't say you were checking every door for traps; you only mentioned it at the first door you opened..." I'd rather avoid the potential for aggravation and eye-rolling of trying to explain what you'd intended to do and simply state it clearly up-front. When I DM I simply ask my players to clarify what they intend if what they've said seems at all ambiguous. I'd just rather avoid OOC arguments whenever possible.

 

[Bront]

As a player I've learned that it's best never to leave anything to chance, or a DM's whim. Being vague or careless about stating intended actions can lead to accidental or intentional misunderstandings. I'm not saying that every DM is out to screw their players, but we've probably all encountered the odd DM who sadistically enjoys throwing his players into hot water when given the opportunity to freely interpret their actions: "Well, you didn't say you were collecting the dragon's hoard before you started the trip back to town..." or "You didn't say you were checking every door for traps; you only mentioned it at the first door you opened..." I'd rather avoid the potential for aggravation and eye-rolling of trying to explain what you'd intended to do and simply state it clearly up-front. When I DM I simply ask my players to clarify what they intend if what they've said seems at all ambiguous. I'd just rather avoid OOC arguments whenever possible.

That was my stance on the issue, but one PbP group (well, some of them), gave me flack because I would ask questions about how fast they were moving (when the could potentialy outrun another player), or paused to give them time to react to new data when they learned something new from doing one action when that could influence their decision on their next action.

I guess it's a fine line, that's finer in PbP due to the slower pace.

 

[blargney the second]

If they ask "Is the door locked", I usually ask if they're opening it to find out. Prompting them to clarify their actions is a reasonable way to go, I think.

 

[Vrecknidj]

As a DM, I'm very forgiving and accommodating. My players are there to have fun, not be lawyers, so I don't look for loopholes in their phrases like a Pit Fiend hoping to twist the granting of a wish.

As a player, I prefer DMs who are forgiving and accommodating. I play to watch the story evolve, and to be able to participate in an organic, dynamic world. I like to see how the NPCs and setting are influenced by my character and how my character is influenced by his/her adventures.

I have played with nitpicky, technical, conniving DMs. I've hated it.

At conventions, I hope to get flexible, courteous, and fun DMs--it has happened. I've had some bad ones, but it's been a long time since I've had a really bad one.

Dave

 

[EricNoah]

I have known players who will tell me what their character is "going" to do. And then when I say, ok here's the result, they say "I didn't actually DO it yet." :boggle: If you're telling me you're going to do it, I assume you're going to do it!

 

[Hussar]

IMO, PbP really relies on DM's playing along with the players. So long as it isn't to the detriment of the PC, I don't think anyone has any issues with the DM moving things along. Because of the amount of time required, being nit picky in PbP is just going to drag the game to a glacial pace.

If the question is, "Is the door locked" then the obvious answer is yes/no. Unless there is a very specific reason why simple inspection won't discover this, it's just much simpler. Is it 100% realistic? Probably not. But, again, it depends on what you are looking for.

I look at it like this. In the grand scheme of things, is it really important if this particular door is locked or not? Unless there is some very strange element in the story, likely not. So, if the player asks if it's locked, I assume he's checking carefully and not grabbing a hold and rattling the door. Not an unreasonable assumption IMO considering it's likely the rogue who's asking.

This gets back to my original point about the DM playing along. Adversarial relationships between players and DM's work fairly well in table top. Being nit-picky in tabletop means an extra thirty seconds as you work out details. However, in PbP, without the immediecy of table top, IMO, it's simply better to err on the side of the players.

 

[EricNoah]

If the question is, "Is the door locked" then the obvious answer is yes/no. Unless there is a very specific reason why simple inspection won't discover this, it's just much simpler. Is it 100% realistic? Probably not. But, again, it depends on what you are looking for.

Actually, the question is often a precursor to "make a Fortitude save" or whatever -- because doors are often trapped. Letting it slide when there's no trap, but "slyly" asking "Well, do you touch it?" when it IS trapped just tips the player off. So having a standard meaning for "is the door locked" does turn out to be helpful.

 

[Bront]

"Is the door locked" is simply an example, but far from the only case. I'll admit to going up to a door and saying "Standard Procedure", and having established that, it saves the GM time. I guess it's more an issue of what do you expect if there hasn't been one established.

Let's see if I can come up with an example reminicient to problems I've encounted (In face to face and Play by Post)

DM: You come across a long wall, likely the border of the country. It expands as far as the eye can see.
Player: Can I use the "Displace Earth" ability to dig under it?
DM: Sure, though it might take a little time, and you may have to support the tunnel with something.
Player: Will a "Force Wall" work for that?
DM: Yup, you can suspend that in mid air, so having it agains the top of a tunnel works just fine, but you'll have to cast it twice because of the distance.
Player: Ok.
DM: *waits a bit*
DM: Ok what?

Now, is the DM missing out on the player having said "OK" meaning he was going to do it? Is the DM correct in waiting for the player to actualy tell him "That should work, I'll do that then"?