Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7111632" data-attributes="member: 97077">To me, it's simple. This is the formula:1. The DM describes the environment.2. The players describe what they want to do.3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.The ability check, if there is one, happens between 2 and 3, when the DM determines there is uncertainty as to the outcome of what the players described in Step 2. So the players have already done their part in the attempt at persuasion. They do have to deal with the aftermath of their attempt as described by the DM in Step 3 and anything else established as the DM loops around to Step 1, but otherwise, they don't get to narrate the results. If they tried to be persuasive, then they do as they described, whether they acted it out or plainly stated a goal and approach - it just fell short of success on a failure. They don't suddenly do something they didn't initially describe instead.Is it being suggested that we go to the below formula instead?1. The DM describes the environment.2. The players ask to make an ability check.3. The DM accedes to the request for some reason and sets a DC despite knowing what the PCs are doing exactly.4. The players narrate the result with the DM's input.If so, I would have some issues with this. One, as a player, I do NOT want to roll the dice. They are not my friend. I want to succeed outright, so asking to make a check is not desirable. Further, asking to make an ability check is not the same as describing what you want to do. It does imply certain things, but that leaves far too much assumption on the table in my view. And without knowing with reasonably specificity what the players' goal and approach is, I don't see how the DM decides on success or failure, certainty or uncertainty, or difficulty.</blockquote>

Verification