I'm having some players that ask "Can I do this and that" a couple of times a session. Sometimes it's because the situation isn't fully clear but most of the times it's to (my guess) try to get a reading of what i'm ruling on forehand.
Example: If a player asks if he/she could jump of a cliff, and i say it's >10ft so there would be a save and/or damage, it's because the situation isn't fully clear (Although if I don't mention the save/damage it might turn into another question).
If a player asks during combat if he/she could move a certain way or try to fight in another way (Poke out an eye or something like that) they ask if he/she can... My reaction is, 9 out of 10 times, "yes, but are you going to?".
IRL you don't always know how hard a skill is going to be without first trying it. I don't know how hard it's going to be to poke out an eye of a raging half orc barby because i've never done it...
So what i'm trying to ask, what do you, the general public of DnD people, do when players ask you if they can do something a couple of times instead of trying to do it.
iserith will tell you not to let the players ask questions of you during play. Instead, they should make declarative statements only. For instance, if your PC is in a room and you want to know if there are any other exits, you shouldn't ask the DM, "Are they any exits from this room?" but rather state "I scan the room for exits".
I find this approach appealing, and I've managed to get my players to buy-in on it .. in theory at least. I've little doubt that they still ask me questions - and that I still answer them - out of habit. I'm going to have to make an effort to pay better attention to that sort of thing during any given session.
I ask lots of questions as a player, and am fine having players ask me as DM.
As the OP suggests, they just want more info to make a meaningful decision.
If a player asks me for more information, I gladly provide it. Questions such as "You said there was a ledge - is it high enough to cause some falling damage?" or "How is that NPC dressed?" that are seeking details that I either forgot to mention or didn't think would be important enough to describe without someone asking for the info, are always allowed, and encouraged.
If a player asks me for permission to try something, they get only one answer: "You can try anything that you want to, so what do you do?" Questions such as "Can I disarm that wight?" or "Can I poke this orc in the eye?" aren't actually helpful in my opinion - the player attempting to gauge their chance of success without commiting to trying serves no purpose in my experience but to slow down the gameplay, and result in the player not actually trying most of these hypothetical actionss because their chance of success is a little lower than some other action's chance would be or the resulting effect doesn't seem as clearly beneficial as, for example, just attacking normally.
I encourage questions and that players share their considerations in the open. Makes it easier for the DM to describe relevant facts that enables the players to make the right call. Questions askiing for permission I always interpret as in fact asking if there is any obvious cirsumstances that prevents this particular coarse of action eg "Can I poke the orc in the eye?" - could be either "Yes you can try - that would be opposing dex checks" or it could also be "Sorry no, the orcs helmet would prevent you from doing that"
With questions you avoid situations where the players feel that the DM have omitted relevant facts (like that the orc was wearing a helmed covering the eyes) because the DM did not know that the player had in mind.
It is the modern way in many games
Don't ask the GM if you can do something......just do it, roll the bones if needed, live with both triumph, failure and consequence
One reason I have left PF as it is a game of permissions........mother may I, I think they call it
The 5th is liberating, so liberate yourself!!!!
If players are asking "can I do (fill in the blank)," I just say, "You can try to do anything you want. I'll let you know how it turns out when you do."
CFK wrote:
This, definitely. The PCs can try anything. It might be next to impossible, but if they pull it off, that’s what stories are made of.
alienux wrote:
People seem to equate "don't ask questions" with "Do things blind" or "never gather information" and that isn't correct.
An adventurer, particularly a trained fighter-type, *should* have some idea if he can disarm a wight or poke an orc in the eye, and the player has a 'right' to that information. The trick is to gather it without asking "How hard is it to poke him in the eye?" Perhaps "I compare my weapon to his helmet and stance to determine how hard it seems to take his eye out." Now the DM can follow up with a description that provides some information. It moves it from a 'Q&A puzzle session' to 'describing a roleplaying fiction'. Don't get me wrong, I like the puzzle solving aspect of the game, but I want the puzzles to be part of the RPG, not separate from it.
There should be a middle ground between a series of questions, and having to just take the action blind. Some of my worst game experiences were times when the DM allowed the PC to do things that the PC would have never tried. (Basically, the DM and I had different ideas on how difficult the task would be, but the *PC* would have known)
Because I'm a heavily improvisational GM, I usually don't bother determining the difficulty of actions - I just hear the die result and decide on the spot 'that seems about right' or 'that seems close, but not close enough' or 'that's way off'. If people ask me how difficult something is before they do it, they're shooting themselves in the foot because then I'm going to decide on the difficulty ahead of time.
Now, if they ask me to clarify something about the environment (especially if they do it with leading questions about what they want such as "is there a half-full slop bucket in the corner of the common room"), or if they just add the thing they want to the description of their action, I'm more likely to think that their eventual action should be easier because of the circumstances and judge their roll more favorably. So it's in my players' best interests to be proactive in that regard.
Coredump00 wrote:
Interesting question.
CFK wrote:
iserith wrote:
Kazadvorn wrote:
I get both from my players. Is it possible to Dm both types of play?
I just have the same issues some dms have when a player asks if they can do something. Some times I give them the information Player "Can I jump through the window?" DM "Yes". Player, "Can I shoot the elf peaking arround the corner?" DM "Maybe? Do you try?" Sometimes I will just ask them to try.
As a Dm I would rather have my players declare what they want to do. It makes it easier for me, I know what the player wants to do and can adjudicate. When they start asking questions, a Dm has to guess at what the player wants to do, that can be frustrating. But I run a big group of ten players with various styles, temperment and personalities. People proccess information differently. For some they will have to ask questions before they declare an action. That s thier proccess. As a Dm I am capable of accomodating such players and have no problem doing so.
iserith wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
AquaticSpaceChicken wrote:
iserith wrote:
Kazadvorn wrote:
Kazadvorn wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
iserith wrote:
I'm seeing a difference in kinds of questions. Some ask for clarification of established facts. Some preemptively seek permission to act.
The first of these amounts to the same whether presented declaratively or inquisitively. "I check for exits." "Are there exists?" are functionally the same thing, just differences of stance.
But "Can I bribe the guard?" "Can I stab that guy in the eyes?" are process questions seeking ratification via system.
I don't care one way or the other about the first set. The second set is wimpy. Be metal or stop adventuring. ::flex::
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
AquaticSpaceChicken wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
cowleymen wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Kazadvorn wrote:
So first let me say that I am new to DMing. In fact I would say I am relatively new to role-playing games having just started back to playing not too long ago after not having played since Original D&D when I was a kid. Some friends and I played through a pathfinder campaign and then 5e, I was a player for that. I decided to try my hand at DMing and to test the waters I set up a short 2 session dungeon. I aspire to run a game like Iserith, I am like a jonsing crack addict every week waiting for the Summer at the lake transcripts to post. We are about to start a full campaign with me as DM and I have set up some really good ideas and plan to run a bit more of a sandbox type game with no hard set story, but rather a general starting point and theme and let the players create the story as we go.
So we started the short sessions and I came to a realisation, it really comes down to trust. At the start of the short dungeon the players asked if they could do things every turn. They were used to playing in an environment where they would want to do things or come up with ideas and the DM would often tell them no. I instead went with a different viewpoint and continually told them that they could do anything, tell me what it is and I will narrate it. After a few times of timidly saying "can I do X?" I would say "you can do anything you want, tell me what it is you want to do." After a couple times I think they realized that they didn't have to ask, that I as a DM would not try to screw them over for trying something and that I would work with it. By the end, they were still asking if they could do stuff out of habit, but it was slowly getting better. At the start of the session they were affraid to try aything really, somewhere in the middle one of them asked if he could throw an octopus that was summoned by one of the other players on to the enemy. I let him with a roll to determine how it went and after that they started trying more and more fun stuff and asking less questions.
So I think it all comes down to trust between players and DM. If the players know that the DM is not gonna try to kill them or screw them over for trying something and instead try to make what they try either succeed or have an interesting outcome, they start to feel emboldened to do more and ask less. As I said I am new to this and I would guess it depends on your players but in my limited experience it seems to come down to being open to the ideas they come up with and working with them.
Sanndor wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Sanndor wrote:
I approach the game from the persepctive that if my character knows something then I as a player also have the right to know what my character knows or doesn't know. It's impossible for me to play my character without that information.
Does my character have to do anything at all to notice whether a very large window is large enough for him to fit through or to know that city guards in this town are prone to bribes?
In the window case the DM has already told me I noticed the window. He failed to tell me if it was obviously large enough. My character shouldnt even have to look at the window and assess anything about it. My character already did that when you told me the window was there. He shouldn't need any extra action or effort on his part to get that information. I as the player just need the information about what my character already figured out.
In the guard case the DM has told me about a guard and if my character was familiar with the town at all he would instantly know whether the guards in that town are known for taking bribes. My character doesn't have to do any assessing or trying to remember about guards in that town, he knows or doesn't know without any extra action or effort on his part. I as the player just need the information about what my character already knows.
So I really don't understand the notion of having my character do extra stuff to get the information he already has.
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
its funny how quickly threads devolve into arguments about terminology
mbeacom wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
What difference does it make whether it is called a rule or a minigame? Those are labels or names. Who cares? The question is how best to conduct one's game.
Orethalion wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Psikerlord wrote:
I am going to do my best to derail this mini-game vs rule terminology debate. The discussion was going pretty well until that became the topic....So.....
It *is true*.... that sometimes making the PC do something to get the information makes no sense.
Either because it should have been immediately obvious
"I examine the wall to determine what color it is"
Or because your PC should already know the information
"I try and remember my mentor's name"
Or because it is something the DM didn't adequately describe
PC: I examine the window to see if I can easily fit through it DM: Oh yes, its 6' square
So yes, there *are* times where it seems a bit contrived, but..... there are still benefits
1) It means you don't have to think about which issues should be in-character, and which are okay to ask as the player
2) It keeps the game going in the headspace of 'being' the PC, instead of the headspace of 'watching' the PCs and environment
3) It keeps the story fiction going, instead of bouncing between the story and the mechanics
I think those searching for the (few) examples of when it feels goofy to gather the info in-character are doing themselves a disservice. Much of the benefits can't be 'proven' without trying it. I think if you give it an honest try, you will find more benefits than you may think.
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
iserith, not everyone is a perfect DM. Sometimes DM's don't frame scenes as well as they should. It happens.
With that said, as coredump pointed out sometimes making the PC do something to get the information makes no sense.
So in situations where it makes little sense for the PC to do something to get the information and the DM didn't frame the scene as well as it should have been is it okay at that point to ask questions for extra details to the DM? Or do you believe it is better to trudge through the same style and just phrase the questions as assesments that the PC's are trying to make eeven if some of those assessments make little sense coming from the PC perspective?
FrogReaver wrote:
iserith wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
iserith wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Archon007 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CFK wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CFK wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I dislike playing "mother may I"
I dislike playing "assess obvious stuff"
I dislike playing "20 questions"
I think theres a happy middle ground where sometimes asking permission is okay, where sometimes assessing things in character is okay and sometimes asking a few player to DM out of character questisons is okay too.
If any of these styles is done to an extreme I don't think I would enjoy the game. I think most players are alot like me in that regard.
iserith, I have a question.
I know you dislike when players ask alot of questions out of character. Would you also dislike it if the player constantly had his character "assessing" every little thing to make sure there wasn't some important detail you had either not told him or forgotten to tell him.
"I assess the window" "I assess the position of the guards" "I assess the possible paths to the window" "I assess the room for other exists" "I access the room for anything of value to take" "I assess the room for anything I could use a diversion" "I assess the room for anyone I can take as a hostage" "I assess the NPC's in the room to see what they are wearing" "I assess which NPC has the nicest clothes on" "I assess the room for anything that will be easy to start a fire with"...
I dislike anything that is repetitive, boring, and doesn't contribute to the goals of play. Luckily, it's very easy to avoid such a situation.
You're really reaching here, FrogReaver. You were exerting yourself to find examples where what some are advocating doesn't make sense - when it's easy to make things make sense. Now you're straining to suggest a player somewhere somehow would choose to start nearly every sentence with "I assess" - when we all know that's ridiculous.
Keeping things in terms of fictional actions one's character takes, whether first or third person, that makes sense given the scene is very simple and rewarding. One wonders why you struggle so mightily to suggest it isn't. Ask all the questions you want in your game - go nuts! Just don't do it in mine. I have a different standard.
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
I'm glad i don't have gms who are not syntax police. PLayer "How big is the window." DM, "You don't know does your pc check window." Player "Pc checks to see how big the window is." DM" Better your pc realizes it is two feet by two feet."
As a Dm I could just skip the second step Player, "How big is the window?" DM "Window is 2 feet by 2 feet"
Why play this silly syntax game? I use both depending on how my players ask or describe wht thier pcs do. I see no reason to force some syntax rules on my players. Its just wierd to me, and distracts from the game.
FrogReaver wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Would it really take that much effort to just say "I look at aforementioned window and size it up."?
Where's the confusion here?
If the DM failed to describe how big the window is, it doesn't matter if your character knows he can fit through it. You, the player, don't! That's why you need to ask.
If the DM described how big the window was, then both the player and the character know how big the window is. Whether the character can fit through it is up to a Dexterity check, or if the window has been described as enormous or as an arrow slit, use common sense.
If the DM described how big the window is and suggests that your character can't/might be able to fit through it, there's no issue.
Pelor's beard, it's almost as if I'm suggesting the players and DM communicate with each other!
Thunderspear wrote:
Thunderspear wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Thunderspear wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Thunderspear wrote:
iserith wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Both the window and minigames arguments are beat.
The difference between asking to clarify a detail and asking whether an action will work before its attempted is obvious.
"How big is the window" is as legit as "You said the Orc was far - is that bowshot or unreachable?" These types of questions seek to make sure an avenue of action is open. You ask because you don't want an auto fail simply because you misunderstood the situation.
Thats very different than asking whether or not escaping through the window will work. Or if bribing the guard will work. Or worse, asking If you "can" do those things.
So let's revisit the window. I, your DM, describe a high ceiling-ed room with a window facing a garden. The spit hits the fan in this room as all occupants engage in an insane debate over semantics and logical fallacies. You, the player, deciding leaping out a window is preferable to enduring any more pedantry, declare "I need to escape this room."
"Ok," I say, "And how do you go about that?"
"You mentioned a window? Is it big enough to leap through?" (Note you've now given me an intent "escape" and an approach "through the window.")
Having both your intent and approach, I tell you what your character knows. "This is a small window. You are a medium creature. You can squeeze through but someone might try to stop you. Make a Dex check DC 10. If you succeed, you make it through. If you fail, you're sucked back into a stupid argument. What do you do?"
-----
This is all very different than asking whether or not escape is possible. In the first instance, we have a clear goal and approach, and we just need a detail clarified. In the second instance, we have a player ask whether or not a goal is valid. That's crap. For 2 reasons. 1, reasonable courses of action should be clear from the DM's description. And 2, I don't want to be mother in the game of mother may I any more than I want to ask mother may I.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
I'm not confusing them. I'm drawing a distinction between codified game action and RP stance: Passive vs dynamic.
bawylie wrote:
First, he's not forcing anything.
Second, nobody's taking anything away and there is no need for an alternative process of any kind.
These incidental clarifications are being discussed in terms of stance. Ideally, perfect information will be conveyed and understood perfectly at all times. But since that'll never happen, we turn to a preferred stance to handle recurring ambiguities.
Lets say we have a passive stance in which you ask for clarification. A directorial stance in which you clarify it yourself ("I do fit the window, so I jump through"). An active stance in which you assert an in-world activity that leads you to more info. On the DM side, an assumed accommodation, in which the answer to any ambiguity is resolved in favor of the player. Adverse accommodation or obstacle in which all ambiguities are resolved to the players' detriment. And an honest or let's say consistent resolution in which things are factually what and where and why they are without regard to the players' relationship to the game. And then another blended stance incorporating all of these.
Me? I resolve ambiguities in favor of the player - every time. Iserith? He prefers the players to take dynamic action. Others are cool with the questions.
None of these are fundamental mandates about how you must play, they're just contrivances that paper over our inability to perfectly communicate so we can move the damn game along. Each person chooses the stance that they feel is best. Each stance has merits, but it's down to a) preference and b) style in service of resolving unclear details.
In my view...
No Good: "Can I bribe the guard?"
No Good: "After talking to him about fines and levies due for law-breaking, I try to get a read on the guard to see if he's open to being bribed."
Good: Player to DM: "I'm gonna try to bribe this guard. What's his demeanor?" (Statement of intent and request for information that should have already been obvious to the character)
DM: "Go for it. Tired, maybe a little bored."
Player, in character: "Hey Guard, why the long face?"
Either
DM, in character (guard is not bribable): "Move along peasant."
or
DM, in character (guard is amenable to a bribe): "Wha? Oh, hmmm, been standing here all day, feet are killing me."
Player, in character: "Well, can't be all bad, surely being in this spot all day, there's a way to make a few...copp...uh, I mean silvers...on the side?"
DM, in character: "Heh, yeah, I wish."
Player, in character, under their breath, "Well well, you don't say" Rubs hands together and grins over his should to his friends standing nearby.
To me, the first two no-goods are the same. IMO both amount to a player trying to feel out the DM for what they can do without any actual RP. Stating the thing in character (as if RP actually happened) doesn't change anything for me. Just feels like a gimmick to conceal the same type of request. The "I try to get a read" is like an annoying blinking light similar to "I assess" or "I attempt to gauge".
To be clear. I'm not saying anyone else should do this or even try it. (though they can if they wish). I'm simply explaining my opinion and trying to give an example to clarify.
FrogReaver wrote:
bawylie wrote:
so 100 questions is a game but so is D&D
iserith wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
regardless of what people think. I have found this discussion facinating if confusing. It is a good look on how DND players communicate and expectations about how to communicate in a dnd game. It's interesting how people can argue about really minutia in communication. I'm still confused at what is so wrong with asking the Dm "How big is the window?" or why such a question is problem that needs fixing. But there is a whole lot of discussion about it and how it effects immersion and how inforcing such syntax rules effects immersion.
Great discussion fellas Thanks.
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I think once unconscious stated actions are allowed you will find that there is no functional difference in these statements and in simply asking the DM for additional scene details.
Player to DM: "Is the window large enough for my character to fit through?" vs. Internal character voice to Narrarator: "My characater unconsciously assess whether the window is large enoguh to fit through". Both of these provide the same information in the same way, through the characters unconscious evaluation process.
However, "My character evaluates whether the window is large enough to fit through" may often porvide the same information but it isn't in the same way. This kind of phrase denotes a more active approach like you are looking at the window again to make this determination.
To me D&D is a game not just about the results but also about the approach. I'm sure I'm not the only one 
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
I played under a DM who made us put a thumb to our foreheads when we were speaking out of character.
But all this is about stance, which truly, truly doesn't matter.
Underlying the issue is communication and expectation. And we've barely scratched that while dancing around.
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
That Mischaracterization isn't one-sided, friend.
bawylie wrote:
Yeah. That's the thing - what's going on in the 711 exchange is a part of communication but it's not the matter being communicated.
I'm currently toying with an idea that marries inquisition to in-game action. So you get a giant benefit but take a moderate risk.
iserith wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
bawylie wrote:
So, Mbeacom. Are you going to answer the questions, or will you continue to avoid it and confirm the bad faith of your argument.
No Good: "After talking to him about fines and levies due for law-breaking, I try to get a read on the guard to see if he's open to being bribed."
iserith wrote:
paulstrait wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
The vitriol in this thread is akin to that one Great Weapon Fighter (damage on a miss and whatnot) thread back in the playtest, which I'm ashamed to admit I participated in.
Reading further responses, I think part of the issue is that too much focus is being applied to refuting others' opinions and not enough focus is being applied to asking for clarification of those opinions.
For example, I simply don't understand FrogReaver's claim that a player asking the GM for description of a window, and to see if the window allows his character to fit through, makes the Player Character dimwitted. I also don't understand what he means when he says "unconscious actions". I may intuitively disagree with what he says, but because I don't understand, I don't know what I'm disagreeing with and therefore cannot make a truly valid counterpoint without simply attacking his opinion. Let me explain why I don't understand, and perhaps he can address my confusion appropriately:
- The game we're all playing revolves around one person setting the scene (the DM), and other people interacting with it. Other people's interactions with that scene depend entirely on what the DM has described; if not enough is revealed, then questions are asked. If the DM failed to describe how big the window was, it follows that the players do not know how big the window is. If the players do not know how big the window is, you get a sort of Quantum Window because technically nobody has observed how big the window is since the DM hasn't described it; it may or may not be big enough for your character to fit through. Getting to my question; Let's say your character has made that split-second, unconscious observation of the window, and determined whether or not he can climb through it. To you, the player, the window is still a Quantum Window because the DM has not described it in further detail. You don't know whether your character can climb through the window or not, though your character might, so why would it be okay for you to assume that you know when the window's size has not been established yet by the DM? Unless by some miracle your character can break the fourth wall and tell you "Hey man, I can totally climb out that window, so if you just direct me over there, that'd be pretty cool", player knowledge and character knowledge do not coincide. Even if your character, your way of interacting with the scene has his own established knowledge, oftentimes, you do not possess that knowledge until the DM says you do. Do you see what I'm saying? The medium of this game is description, which mostly flows from the DM. If he has not offered sufficient description, you need to ask him questions to fill in the gaps and re-establish the link between player knowledge and character knowledge, and thus act on the window appropriately.
- Since the above (in my opinion; if there are holes in my reasoning please point them out. That is the point of this post-- clarification) establishes that there is no way for you, the player to know how big this window is, but you claim that your character does know how big it is, why would your character be forced to be dimwitted? The only lack of knowledge here, going off the assumption that your character has, unconsciously and in a split-second, observed the size of the window and whether he can fit through it, is player knowledge; the rare case that the player doesn't know what the character knows. In this case, you are dependent on the DM to fill you, the player in on what the character knows. Do you see what I'm saying? I'm saying regardless of whether or not your character has unconsciously observed the window as a person would in real life, you as a player have not observed the window until the DM has described it, and thus you cannot act on it, and have to clarify by asking the DM. My confusion and question is, then, how does this make your character dimwitted?
The above was based entirely on the assumption that we are playing a game where "observation" from the player's angle = description from the DM or other players. If something is not observed, generally you cannot act upon it. If my assumption was wrong, and your group possesses a medium other than description to equate to observation from your angle as a player, please share.
I want clarification of people's statements. Amidst the strange wordings and logic used, the meat of people's points has been lost to me, but I would like to know what they are so I know whether my intuitive agreement/disagreement with their statements is justified or not.
Thunderspear wrote:
mbeacom wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thunderspear wrote:
iserith wrote:
Wuzzard wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
You have summed up my position very well.
iserith wrote:
Ah, so let me rephrase it and you can confirm if I understood your objection:
You believe that, in declaring in the narrative your character's action to look at the window, you are establishing your character as a dimwit because no clear-minded person would consciously take a moment to look at the window and size it up; they'd have sized it up upon entry into the room.
Am I getting that clearly enough?
If not, could you clarify?
If so:
This means you depend entirely on the DM to describe the window to you before you need the window for something, so you don't have to declare the IC action of observing the window to see if you could fit through it. So, what if you, the player, don't know the size of the window? How do you find out from the DM, if you're inclined to only communicate intent through IC, without making your character appear dimwitted?
FrogReaver wrote:
So so how dim witted does Tordek look when the window in question ends up being 10ft x 10ft?
My character is going to be laughing at the dim witted dwarf that had to size up a 10ft by 10ft window with anything more than a first glance.
iserith wrote:
It it all depends on how big or small the window actually is, which is variable in my perspective as a player until the dm declares it.
upon entry into the room a reasonable character that noticed the window would know 1 of 3 things.
1. The window is huge and obviously big enough to fit through
2. Window is tiny and obviously to small to fit through.
If the dm has the window be either of these above sizes then it takes a dim wit to need to look again at the window to see if you can fit through.
3. The size is average and you are uncertain with just that glance if you can fit through.
its this case a closer look would be sensible and not a something only dimwits would do.
Thunderspear wrote:
So how do you find out what you know about the window on first glance.
1. you directly ask the dm
2. You have some way of communicating in character with the dm that establishes your desire for what information you've already unconsciously processed about the windows size.
3. The dm already volunteered the info you wanted during his initial description of the scene
Thunderspear wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
When my replies are above the quoted text in usually on my phone.
Its hard to hit every important point this way.
If you try to avoid the dimwit issue by more details like my pc was distracted that's fine, just know your putting the same issue further off and not solving it. Whether your playstule is forcing my character to be a dimwit or distracted its forcing something on my character I may not be okay with.
Again this can be fixed with my unconscious action suggestion.
iserith wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
My biggest problem with asking questions of the DM is that it breaks you out of the story and leads to stalling and option paralysis.
The heroes enter a room and the DM gives a quick description of it. Then the players pause the game to gather more information for their characters and after a few minutes resume play.
I find it's much more interesting to keep playing. The heroes enter a room and the DM give a quick description of it. Then the characters move about the setting, inspecting the things that interest them.
Maybe it's just me, but it bugs me when, narratively speaking, the heroes open a door and then crowd around the opening for five minutes just eyeballing the place.
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
iserith wrote:
Thunderspear wrote:
iserith wrote:
I am saying I dislike playing that way and explaining why.
You all keep saying me explanation for why isn't readonable. No explanation for why would seem reasonable for someone so vested in a particular system.
iserith wrote:
sirkaikillah11 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Means your objections as to why my view is unreasonable are also unreasonable in my view.
Don't get me wrong I want more of your method in my games. There's a level of appeal in it. However i don't think it has to be enforced as strictly as you do to keep the game running and flowing smoothly. In fact there are some situations I feel are better handled with a simple question.
iserith wrote:
How about this: the point is not that "the character needs to do something extra in order to 'earn' knowledge (size of a window...) that s/he should already have," the point is that the knowledge doesn't matter unless the character is already doing something.
"How wide is the window near Gromgax"
"3' high by 5' wide"
"Gromgax leaps through it.".
"Gromgax studies the window to determine it's size"
"Gromgax believes it to be approximately 9 hands by 15 hands"
Gromgax leaps through it".
Both of those things are functionally exactly the same and will cause the game to progress in exactly the same way. Preference between them is purely aesthetic. If that's is all this discussion is about, it's just shouting that strawberry is a better ice cream flavour than butter pecan.
DemoMonkey wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote: