Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Charlaquin" data-source="post: 8478116" data-attributes="member: 6779196">That’s a preference of mine, because it keeps the conversation focused on actual action that’s occurring in the fiction, instead of stepping back from the action to talk about the fiction in an abstract way. But it’s not a rule or anything and I don’t tell my players they can’t ask questions. I just explain my preference for active language in advance so we’re on the same page from  the start.“I look for an exit” tells me that something is happening in the fiction. The character is actively looking around. The other pauses the action so we can establish, in an abstract manner, what is present in the fiction before the action can continue. Again, this is just a stylistic preference for me, which is a separate issue from the need to understand a player’s goal and character’s approach to resolve an action.I don’t care how you phrase your action declaration (I do prefer that you declare an action rather than ask a question, but again, that’s a separate issue), as long as I can tell, without having to make assumptions, what you want to accomplish and what your character is doing to try and accomplish it. The “when in doubt” phrasing is just a recommendation for folks who are having trouble grokking what I’m asking for to fall back on.Great. I’m glad that works for you and your friends. I am not comfortable making the same assumptions you are. In order to determine if an action can succeed or fail and has meaningful stakes (which remember are my criteria for whether or not to call for an ability check) I need to know what actual activity is taking place, and what the intended result of that activity is.For example, if you say, “I try the key I got off the cultist’s body on the lock,” I know that if it’s the right key, the approach (use the key) can’t fail to achieve the goal (open the lock), and if it’s the wrong key, I know it can’t succeed at achieving the goal. I can simply narrate the results. If you say “I try to pick the lock with my thieves’ tools,” I know that the approach (use the thieves’ tools) can succeed at achieving the goal (open the lock), and can also fail at achieving the goal. I also have enough information to determine if there are meaningful stakes (is the time it will take you to try to pick the lock precious? Is there a risk of your tools breaking? etc.) so I can determine if I should call for a check or not. If you say “I open the lock” and don’t tell me how, I don’t have enough information to determine those things and will have to ask for clarification - “how do you try to open it? Do you have a key? Lock picks? Do you just try to smash it? With your bare hands, or do you use some sort of tool?”This is a very basic example. I hope you can imagine how a more abstract activity like trying to intimidate someone might get even more complex to try and understand in concrete terms if the player is not specific about what they’re trying to accomplish and why. Now, I could make assumptions - many DMs do. But that’s not something I want to do, because in my experience it can lead to “I didn’t say I was touching the handle!” moments. Besides that, I don’t think it should be my job, as DM, to establish what your character is doing in the fiction. That’s your role, you decide what your character thinks, feels, and does, and describe it to me. My role is to determine and describe to you the results of what your character does, possibly asking you to make a check if needed to make that determination. Then to describe the environment again to repeat the play loop.</blockquote>

Verification