What counts as a detailed enough, permissible action declaration?

[Fenris-77]

Moral according to whom? The PC?Perhaps I'm missing some context, but PC worldview alone isn't enough to make it the 'moral' choice.

High DC isn't awful, but I still dont really think if reflects the declared action. You're talking about convincing a hunter to become a vegatrian right? Sorry, one roll just doesn't really work for my conception of how enormously difficult that is. Again, context could certainly change that. Everyone adjudicates differently. If the person being convinced was a bit player for example, or there were things about the setting that mitigated for it, that could change my mind.

 

[Numidius]

I had to address the OP question recently at my table.
The druid ended up alone in a scene, and wanted to cast one spell after another. The first one was pretty straightforward in its intent, but then I was not sure what it was about.
Also I want to foster pemertonian action dec. at least outside of combat, and, since we roll for spellcasting, broaden the impact of magic, reading the actual spell as written as a guideline on the subject.
So I had to ask questions in order to broaden the scope of his declaration, until he spit out that he wanted to find a safe place to rest for the night.

So I said:
Task is to Summon Animals to disperse the remaining hobgoblins.
Intent: to find a safe place for the night.

Of course a 20 was rolled, so I could liberally introduce a new chunk of content, (that before was just hinted at, not detailed, open to future possibilities) while preserving the Player's intent.

I remarked to the table that had he roll a 1, for instance, the druid might have ended up taken and lead on a night journey by the hobgoblins to their camp for interrogation.

It might seem a bit arbitrary on my part, but we must also move quickly thru scenes, because of real life time constraints and, moreover, six Pcs in the party to manage.

So, what constitutes a permissible action declaration, is definitely something we are exploring at the table.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Why not just set a DC that reflects the posited difficulty? (Assuming a system that uses set difficulties. The system in which the action I described in the OP is not one of those.)
...
Well, the argument in this case was that it was the moral thing to do.

If this was in D&D 5e, I'd rule that the player made a decent action declaration but has no reason to roll persuasion since success isn't possible, or that he needs to roll persuasion but success just means the hunter doesn't get mad at him, or maybe that the hunter humors him to get him to can it. Under D&D rules, the DM decides if what is being attempted is even possible, then sets a DC based on the difficulty. A lot of people (especially those playing charisma-skill-characters) seem to approach social interaction as mind control, where 'I declare a thing I want to make someone think or do, and there's always at least a 5% chance that it works' is the rule of the day. But convincing a hunter to give up his previous beliefs and his entire lifestyle and livelihood is just not something I see working in a casual conversation like this.

 

[aramis erak]

This thread is part of the family of recent "skilled play" and related threads.

It's an invitation to talk about permissible action declarations, and how different sorts of approaches - especially in respect of details required - feed into the RPG experience.

Since the first time I ran Burning Empires...

• I need to know what success will mean.
• I need to know how you're getting there.
• I need at least an implied "what happens if the roll isn't a success."

I don't mind if that third one is player supplied, whether or not the player supplying is the one declaring the action.

 

[pemerton]

convincing a hunter to give up his previous beliefs and his entire lifestyle and livelihood is just not something I see working in a casual conversation like this.

Why do you describe it as a casual conversation?

Because there are spoilers for The Green Knight I won't go into all the details. But it's a moment of crisis for the character.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Why do you describe it as a casual conversation?

Because there are spoilers for The Green Knight I won't go into all the details. But it's a moment of crisis for the character.

As I'm not a long distance mind reader, I go off of what is written when I write a response. Asking why I didn't use information that you didn't provide is a bit much.

 

[ccs]

When I understand what you intend.

 

[Umbran]

Is this understood to be a GM decision?

Setting aside GM-less games, you mean?

I can think of examples where the GM doesn't determine the purpose of the mountain. But generally, once the GM knows that purpose, the GM gets to make the call as to what kind of action declarations are appropriate. As the rules arbiter/implementer, that's pretty central.

 

[pemerton]

As I'm not a long distance mind reader, I go off of what is written when I write a response. Asking why I didn't use information that you didn't provide is a bit much.

Well in the OP I said neither that it was casual, nor that it wasn't.

I guess I'm curious more about why the assumption that it's casual.

There've been a series of posts in this thread - of which yours is the most recent - suggesting that changing the hunter's mind about hunting and eating meat is a big deal. I've been struck by this: it seems that most posters in this thread would require much more elaborate action declarations, and play, to bring it about that a PC converts the hunter to vegetarianism than to bring it about that a PC kills the hunter.

 

[uzirath]

There've been a series of posts in this thread - of which yours is the most recent - suggesting that changing the hunter's mind about hunting and eating meat is a big deal. I've been struck by this: it seems that most posters in this thread would require much more elaborate action declarations, and play, to bring it about that a PC converts the hunter to vegetarianism than to bring it about that a PC kills the hunter.

Arguably, it may be easier to end a life than to change a core belief. (A person’s foodways are often quite deeply rooted.) Ending a life merely requires poking enough holes in the meat sack. Changing a core belief may take quite a bit longer.

Nevertheless, many RPGs don’t have life or death decided by a single roll. There’s often the combat mini-game requiring multiple contests or skill checks to succeed.

I’m not suggesting that it must or should be this way, but it is fairly traditional.