Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 6750063" data-attributes="member: 97077">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=66434" target="_blank">ExploderWizard</a> covered much of what I would say in his or her response to you, but I thought the time you put into your response to me deserved a reply out of respect for your contribution.First, I would say that the purpose of die rolls and mechanics that call for them is to resolve uncertainty as to the outcome of the fictional action undertaken (if the DM establishes uncertainty at all), not to obviate a requirement for narrative detail.Second, the "descriptive method" works for everything the character does in the context of the setting. At the very least, a player must describe a goal and approach to dealing with a particular challenge. This is how the DM determines whether or not there is uncertainty and thus a roll. Flowery language is nice, but not required to communicate a goal and approach. The DM is well-advised to adjudicate based on the goal and approach only, regardless of the kind of language used. (Though a DM might award such interaction with Inspiration when it exemplifies an established personality trait, ideal, bond, or flaw of the character.)Finally, some players will simply be better at the game than others. I think that is perfectly okay in a game and, given effort and time, I would expect a player's skills to improve. I don't see any value in handicapping a skilled player or requiring less clarity and specificity from a new one. And again, the bare minimum a player must do in my view is clearly articulate a goal and approach with reasonable specificity so that the DM does not have to assume the kinds of actions the character is taking and can determine there is uncertainty or not. In my experience, new players have no issue with this at all. The only thing they may lack is knowledge specific to D&D (tropes, monsters, etc.) and that is learned over time.</blockquote>

Verification