Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7584825" data-attributes="member: 16814">Most certainly I can.  I ask both for a goal -- what the player wants the character to accomplish -- and an approach -- how the player wants the character to accomplish the goal.  Only then can I ascertain what the challenge is for the action.  If that challenge is uncertain, I can use the approach to select which ability check to call for.  I keep the player goal in mind for outcomes and make sure I don't accidentally thwart the goal on a success.  Not knowing the overall goal of the player can lead to succeeding at the roll but still failing to accomplish the player's goal, which is frustrating.In other word, I'll take your first declaration of action above because it has a goal and approach -- I hit the door until it breaks.  I won't take the second -- I hit the door -- because I don't have a goal to pair it with.  I'll ask, "Cool, what's your plan for that -- do you want to break the door down?"  After a bit, the players add this automatically.  I rarely have to prompt for a goal and approach anymore.Here's the thing -- for my style to work the players MUST trust that the GM is not playing to be a dick.  It that semi-adversarial relationship that has players announcing actions without stating the goals -- hoping to sneak one by the GM.  But, I've established that if I know the goal, I'll make sure the player gets a fair shake at it and will not act in a way to thwart that goal just because.  This way, the players are open about what they want to do and how, and I get to make sure that the fairest resolution possible is provided.  Other methods can do this as well -- I'm not at all suggesting mine is the only way to accomplish this -- but if you're going to use mine, then this is essential to it's success.  If the players do not trust the GM to acknowledge and allow pursuit of their goals, it will run into problems -- pretty bad ones, actually.  My method is not a panacea for all tables, by any stretch, and it's isn't a "if you do this, you'll have a great game!"either.  It takes work, just like any other method.I've modified a page from other games as a maxim.  If the players are succeeding, then they're succeeding -- I don't get in the way or lessen a success, and I certainly don't thwart one.  This take a good deal of flexibility in outcome, which is hard to do in 5e (or most D&D) because the nature of the game makes winging it, especially for combat challenges, more difficult that in other games that are built around this concept.  I have enough experience with 5e that I can do it pretty successfully, but it's not easy (I still mess it up, less often as time goes on, but more often than I'd prefer).  The flip side of this is that when players fail, I'll gleefully inflict harm to their goals, making things harder or worse or just plain ugly.</blockquote>

Verification