Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7560615" data-attributes="member: 29398">Not so fast there, bucko. <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />"I swing at it with my mace" declares intent (to swing) and action (the swing itself) while implying a desired result (to hurt or kill the target).  This is great, and the game (in this case via its mechanics) goes on to determine whether or not the desired result occurs, or does not, or is replaced with something else.  If there's any controversy here I can't see it for the life of me.Contrast this, however, with "I hit it with my mace".  This similar - but in a way much more controversial - statement very neatly sidesteps (and subsumes) both intent and action and jumps straight to the desired result, in effect challenging the game (in this case, represented by its mechanics) to go back in time a bit and make the statement untrue.A less mechanical example.  Party is for whatever reason looking for a particular and unusual comb and has just gone into a bedchamber where such might reasonably be found. Now contrast the following statements, all of which may be seen as action declarations in one form or another:1. "I search the chamber thoroughly."2. "I search the chamber thoroughly for the silver fox-head comb."3. "Starting with the dresser, I search the chamber thoroughly for the silver fox-head comb."4. "I take the fox-head comb from the chamber."1. leaves things open-ended for the GM by making no stipulations or assumptions; the GM might here ask for something more specific both in terms of search method/order or what is being sought, or just go with it, assigning chances to find the comb (if it's there at all) along with anything else relevant that might be there.2. forces the GM to concentrate on the comb as the search's target (and somewhat assumes the PC is doing likewise) which has the benefit of keeping things focussed and the drawback of making it more difficult for the GM to introduce other things that might be found here without giving away metagame hints.  The GM still either has to assume the PC's search method or ask for specifics.3. here the GM gets both method specifics and a focus; her job has been made easier unless she's using the comb as a red herring so the PCs will (maybe) find something else.4. and here the outcome of any search is assumed, and if the GM doesn't agree with this she's forced to back things up and say "wait a minute" - hardly desireable.  The player has (let's hope mistakenly) declared result instead of intent, the same as saying "I hit it" rath er than "I swing at it".  So why do players keep doing this?</blockquote>

Verification