Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bendris Noulg" data-source="post: 1537601" data-attributes="member: 6398">I've read this method before, and I gotta admit that I don't like it.&nbsp; It seems to change the game from improvisational to script-reading.&nbsp;I think the problem here would be describing the action too far; describing the action should fall just short of not being able to adjust for a fumble, screw-up, or other result (e.g., &quot;The orc raises his axe to strike at you...&quot; and then roll vs &quot;The orc raises his axe and thrusts it at you with menace and skill...&quot; and then rolling a 1 and trying to recover).&nbsp;There's also a difference between &quot;First Person&quot; and &quot;First Person Shorthand&quot;.&nbsp; My group uses the later, being that while we tend to speak &quot;in character&quot;, we know that we aren't speaking as the characters speak.&nbsp; Everything is weighted against a diversity of factors, primary amongst them being Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, followed by social status, background, native language (vs. the language being spoken), and Diplomacy ranks.&nbsp; The player might say, &quot;I'm going down the road a bit,&quot; which can translate into &quot;I am traveling to yonder farmstead beyond the rise&quot;, &quot;me go 'dat way&quot;, or a multitude of other possibilities depending on the above variables.&nbsp; In this way, the player may give a compelling statement that gives me, the GM, the idea of what the PC is attempting to convey, but in the end, it's the Diplomacy check (or Bluff, or Intimidate) that determines how well the character made that point and how the NPCs receive it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bendris Noulg, post: 1537601, member: 6398"] I've read this method before, and I gotta admit that I don't like it. It seems to change the game from improvisational to script-reading. I think the problem here would be describing the action [i]too[/i] far; describing the action should fall just short of not being able to adjust for a fumble, screw-up, or other result (e.g., "The orc raises his axe to strike at you..." and then roll vs "The orc raises his axe and thrusts it at you with menace and skill..." and then rolling a 1 and trying to recover). There's also a difference between "First Person" and "First Person Shorthand". My group uses the later, being that while we tend to speak "in character", we know that we aren't speaking [i]as the characters speak[/i]. Everything is weighted against a diversity of factors, primary amongst them being Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma, followed by social status, background, native language (vs. the language being spoken), and Diplomacy ranks. The player might say, "I'm going down the road a bit," which can translate into "I am traveling to yonder farmstead beyond the rise", "me go 'dat way", or a multitude of other possibilities depending on the above variables. In this way, the player may give a compelling statement that gives me, the GM, the idea of what the PC is attempting to convey, but in the end, it's the Diplomacy check (or Bluff, or Intimidate) that determines how well the [i]character[/i] made that point and how the NPCs receive it. [/QUOTE]

Verification