Learning to play D&D is more a study of philosophy than it is of rulebooks. Character classes, and saving throws, and combat mechanics are all just subsystems for resolving edge cases. The core mechanic of the game is conversation. Specifically, a Three Step Conversation.
1. The referee describes an environment.
2. The players describe their actions within that environment.
3. The referee describes how the environment changes.
In my experience, this back-and-forth effectively describes the vast majority of good play. For example:
1. “You are in darkness.”
2. “I light a torch.”
3. “The torch illuminates a windowless, brick-walled room with a single door.”
2. “I look around at the ceiling to see if I can find where we entered from.”
3. “The ceiling is vaulted. The hole you fell through isn’t actually up there. It’s on the rear wall, about 10′ off the ground, angled upwards into a chute.”
2. “CRUG THE DESTROYER HATE TINY ROOM! CRUG SMASH DOOR WITH AXE!”
3. “The door’s wood was not particularly strong, and is easily smashed to bits beneath Crug’s mighty blow.”
1. “You see a hallway beyond.”
(See also: “Example of Play for Running Traps Without a Search Check“)
I came up with this formulation a little over a year ago, and have been smugly satisfied with myself ever since. Then, the other day, I was talking with John Bell of The Retired Adventurer. We were discussing refereeing advice, and he suggested following a pattern of Question Answer-Question, something he’d written about back in 2012. To quote the most relevant passage from his post:
I recommend that you, whether a player or referee, end almost any and every assertion you make, especially one that answers another player’s question, with another question, one that either asks what their response is, what further information they want, what the foreseeable consequences of doing something would be, even just confirming their choice.
Question Answer-Question pairs well with the Three Step Conversation. I’m going to work it into the way I referee from now on, and I anticipate seeing some improvement to the flow and momentum of play. If nothing else, ending on a question is a clear signal to the players that I’m done talking. It ought to cut down on awkward pauses where the party waits to see if I have more to add. Moreover, I can occasionally direct my questions at specific players like a vindictive primary school teacher. It could be a useful tool for involving folks who are normally too shy to speak up.
During our talk, John further suggested presenting the players with specific options, not unlike old video game RPGs. “You’ve entered a square room with a door on each wall and a statue of a goblin in the center. Do you want to press on through one of the exits, examine the statue more closely, or look around the room for anything subtle you might have missed?”
Initially this seemed limiting to me. An act of reducing the player’s infinite number of choices down to whatever handful are most obvious to the referee in the moment. That assumes, though, that players will respond to a given list of choices by accepting them as a limitation. That’s generally not how these things go.
Presenting a person with an infinity of options, (“You’re in an open field, what do you do?”) tends to create analysis paralysis, and prompt “safe” responses. Conversely, having the referee put forth some of the more obvious choices could encourage players to look for something outside the box. Even experienced players, who might not always appreciate this sort of presentation, can occasionally benefit from a nudge. And for new players it could be a great way to get them into the adventuring frame of mind.
The method also dovetails nicely with the principals I described in Obfuscation Through Volume, one of the oldest posts on this site which I still stand behind. (The advice, that is. The writing is awful).
Bit of a shorter post today. Sorry if you feel cheated. There’s not a lot to say about this idea, but it felt valuable to share none the less.
I’ve been putting together a list of DM-facing random generators, and “random unsettling questions” from Obfuscation just made the list! Interesting point about offering obvious choices, should be very useful for new and old players alike
I always do the ‘describe room and ask whatcha wanna do thing prior to the giving options. If no player response is forthcoming, declaring a need to roll an encounter check helps – when you don’t act, it’s the world’s turn.
The other time I give options is when time matters and the players are waffling. ‘The Zombies advance, you want to run, attack or what?’ I never give the good options either – That’s the ‘or what’.
Seems to work. Is solid system for promoting thoughtful play.