Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5957767" data-attributes="member: 996">I get the concept.&nbsp; You describe an action (&quot;I charge forward boldly an knock down the first orc that bars my way!&quot;), use a random resolution mechanic ('Fortune'), then describe the action, again, this time conforming to the results (&quot;I run forward blindly and fall flat on my face like an idiot&quot;).&nbsp; I don't think it's a big deal in combat.&nbsp; When you decide to attempt an action vs an enemy, you probably already have in mind how you'd visualize success (and should be considering the possibility of failure, too), so you set it up more like &quot;I charge forward and /try/ to knock aside anything that gets in my way.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; In combat it doesn't seem like a big deal.&nbsp; If you want to resolve your attack, then describe it, that's fine.&nbsp; If you want to declare and describe it step by step, that's fine too.&nbsp; Either way, you have whatever mechanics the game provides, and it's up to you to fit them together with the action you imagine.Where I find this concept more compelling is in skill use, particularly social skills.&nbsp; I think the assumed way to resolve an interaction is to have the player say something in character (&quot;...And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks/That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.&quot; )&nbsp; The you roll a d20 to see how you did ('1'), maybe the DM will give you a +2 for 'good RP,' if what you said was awesome ('3').&nbsp; It's extremely jarring to do some inspired RP and fail miserably, or say something flippant and succeed spectacularly.&nbsp; It's not much better to just go with the RP, since that removes the /character/ from the equation entirely.&nbsp; Simply moving the die roll to the fore give the player a clue how to RP the interaction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5957767, member: 996"] I get the concept. You describe an action ("I charge forward boldly an knock down the first orc that bars my way!"), use a random resolution mechanic ('Fortune'), then describe the action, again, this time conforming to the results ("I run forward blindly and fall flat on my face like an idiot"). I don't think it's a big deal in combat. When you decide to attempt an action vs an enemy, you probably already have in mind how you'd visualize success (and should be considering the possibility of failure, too), so you set it up more like "I charge forward and /try/ to knock aside anything that gets in my way." In combat it doesn't seem like a big deal. If you want to resolve your attack, then describe it, that's fine. If you want to declare and describe it step by step, that's fine too. Either way, you have whatever mechanics the game provides, and it's up to you to fit them together with the action you imagine. Where I find this concept more compelling is in skill use, particularly social skills. I think the assumed way to resolve an interaction is to have the player say something in character ("...And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks/That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day." ) The you roll a d20 to see how you did ('1'), maybe the DM will give you a +2 for 'good RP,' if what you said was awesome ('3'). It's extremely jarring to do some inspired RP and fail miserably, or say something flippant and succeed spectacularly. It's not much better to just go with the RP, since that removes the /character/ from the equation entirely. Simply moving the die roll to the fore give the player a clue how to RP the interaction. [/QUOTE]

Verification