Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="robus" data-source="post: 7583561" data-attributes="member: 6801558">As we have covered this in other threads and I do feel like there has been a simple answer for some time (Iserith, for example, is able to sum it up in a paragraph or less) I have to wonder why it isn't accepted as a simple answer?Now you may not like the answer (and that's fine) but to keep asking for it to be explained and complaining that there's never a simple answer seems more like a desire to not understand?In our games the player simply states an adjudicatable&nbsp; goal and approach. What are they trying to achieve and through what mechanism. &quot;I want to get to the top of the wall by climbing it&quot;. &quot;I want to tame the horse by offering it some hay&quot;. &quot;I want to break through the door by kicking it in&quot;. The DM then takes those inputs and decides whether it succeeds, fails, or is uncertain (where failing has some meaningful consequence). For example, failing to break down the door might cause the occupants to be alerted.That's all. Is that simple enough? Please let us know where any confusion might lie. Again, you may not like this way of handling player actions and that's fine. But it's really not complicated, just different from how earlier editions have run it (or so I understand).To bring it back to the OP, &quot;I want to determine if the NPC is telling the truth&quot; cannot be adjudicated because there is no approach declared. The player could have said &quot;by studying their behavior&quot;, &quot;by reading their mind&quot;, &quot;by casting zone of truth&quot;. The first might be resolved by the DM declaring that the NPC seems like they're being completely honest, no obvious attempt at deception. The others would be handled in the appropriate manner for those spells/abilities. But without an approach a goal has no way to be resolved.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="robus, post: 7583561, member: 6801558"] As we have covered this in other threads and I do feel like there has been a simple answer for some time (Iserith, for example, is able to sum it up in a paragraph or less) I have to wonder why it isn't accepted as a simple answer? Now you may not like the answer (and that's fine) but to keep asking for it to be explained and complaining that there's never a simple answer seems more like a desire to not understand? In our games the player simply states an adjudicatable goal and approach. What are they trying to achieve and through what mechanism. "I want to get to the top of the wall by climbing it". "I want to tame the horse by offering it some hay". "I want to break through the door by kicking it in". The DM then takes those inputs and decides whether it succeeds, fails, or is uncertain (where failing has some meaningful consequence). For example, failing to break down the door might cause the occupants to be alerted. That's all. Is that simple enough? Please let us know where any confusion might lie. Again, you may not like this way of handling player actions and that's fine. But it's really not complicated, just different from how earlier editions have run it (or so I understand). To bring it back to the OP, "I want to determine if the NPC is telling the truth" cannot be adjudicated because there is no approach declared. The player could have said "by studying their behavior", "by reading their mind", "by casting zone of truth". The first might be resolved by the DM declaring that the NPC seems like they're being completely honest, no obvious attempt at deception. The others would be handled in the appropriate manner for those spells/abilities. But without an approach a goal has no way to be resolved. [/QUOTE]

Verification