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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7631383" data-attributes="member: 996">To be even clearer:  Narrating the results of actions give the DM more than adequate latitude to 'run your character' - describe action he takes as part of or reactions he has to those results.Not just in the sense of formally introducing a variant at the start of play, but in the sense of overriding or changing any rule, at any time.  It's carte blanche.Say, you have spent a lot of time on on-line forums, haven't you?   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Interaction skills worked on PCs in 3e, bluff & sense motive would come up a lot IIRC, and in 4e and, to the extent skills work independently of the DM's judgement at all, in 5e, I suppose. 1e had a morale system and PCs were exempted from it.  Apart from that, specific immunities don't leap to mind.  I wonder if the impression that D&D characters' emotional and mental state are sacrosanct (except magic, as always) derives from that hoary exemption?Nod.  And that really should bring the digression to rest.But the OP still stands:  regardless of system, it's been common for GMs to narrate things PCs think/feel or do (examples given in OP).  We can justify that by saying that they might involve/reveal things not evident to the player at the time of his action declaration, or simply for convenience to keep a description-declaration loop from going fractal and eating up too much table time, or whatever.  But, it's certainly familiar - enraging to some players, helpful to others, though it may be.</blockquote>

Verification