Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 7793484" data-attributes="member: 22779">Considering there's only about eight of us in this conversation, umm, what does that say?  Or, conversely, you could actually answer direct questions and demonstrate how you aren't the same as the other DM's who claimed the exact same things you claim?  Maybe actually directly address criticisms instead of simply blocking those who are asking questions and then talking to the vacuum chamber?  Let's get to the heart of the criticisms shall we?1.  Magic Words.  You have stated, repeatedly that if the player narrates an action in a particular way, that the DM will grant automatic success for that action.  And, you have repeatedly stated that this is a good thing.  How is this not, by definition, magic words?  How do you avoid the player simply gaming the DM and ignoring the character?  These narrations are based on the DM using bonds,flaws and whatnot as well as telegraphing to the player to guide the player to making action narrations that will bypass the skill system.I would define that as "magic words".  If the player can come up with just the right phrase, the DM will ignore the game and grant success.  Not only that, but, this behavior is actually encouraged.Criticism:  This allows the player to ignore their character sheet, forces the DM into the front and center of the game since the player must "read the DM" in order to make action declarations, rather than engaging with the fiction.2.  Separation of Character and Player Knowledge.  By and large, most gamers see the need to at least attempt to separate character and player knowledge.  We usually call it getting into character.  However, this style forces the player to directly act on player knowledge - how the player interprets the DM's at the table actions - rather than interpreting the game through the lens of their character.  Criticism:  How does this style avoid the bleed over between in character and out of character knowledge?3.  The DM has to juggle so much at the table.  There is the adventure the DM is trying to run, plus the four or five players who are all interacting to various degrees, plus various other distractions.  In order for this playstyle to work, the DM must communicate virtually all the information to the players as fast as possible in order for the players to actually be able to take actions that have a chance of working.Criticism:  How do you get that information into the players hands quickly enough?  How do you avoid forgetting details and how do you deal with mistakes?4.  Since the players must never declare direct skill or ability checks, there will be times when the player has no idea how to frame an action in order to succeed.  See the Paladin vs Intellect Devourer example.  Criticism:  What happens when the player is stuck?  How do you keep the game moving when the players don't know how to frame their actions?5.  ((My personal criticism)) Time.  All this back and forth between players and DM's is time consuming.  The DM must convey all the pertinent information before the player can make an informed action declaration.  The DM must then wait for the player to frame his action declaration without referencing game mechanics.  The DM must then determine if the declaration qualifies as an autosuccess or a roll is needed and then calls for a roll if necessary.  Player rolls and then DM narrates.  This is far more time consuming than if the player simply leverages a game mechanic.  ((Again, see the Paladin vs Intellect Devourer example - it's now, as I'm writing this, been four or five posts on the subject, rather than a single check initiated by the player))  I play 3 hour sessions.  I don't have time for every player action to take this much time, nor am I interested in having player actions consume this much time.Crtiticism:  This play style drags out the game and kills momentum.  How do you keep pacing high?</blockquote>

Verification