by ctimmins

The fundamental premise of D&D is that the DM “frames the scene” and the gamers “reply”. Whenever you use an phantasm, you might have to reverse the roles just a little bit. Your phantasm is not a lot a “response” to the scene as it’s an try to change the scene itself (so a special suite of responses might be applicable)

For instance
“framing the scene” – you are in a room and a hostile individual kicks within the door.

“response” – pull a weapon and assault
“phantasm” – make myself appear to be any person else; it is a response, however not within the traditional RPG sense – you are attempting to change the scene

Instance turns into
“framing the scene” – you are [illusion: not] in a room and a hostile individual kicks within the door
“response” – gasp in alarm; the hostile-but-confused individual apologizes

I’ve observed over time that when a variety of DMs enter uncomfortable-for-them waters, they have a tendency to default to cube rolls*. In a approach, it is a tacit admission alongside the strains of “what the participant says sounds affordable, however I do not know easy methods to deal with it, so…” As a participant, that will work out for infrequent conditions however you most likely don’t desire your entire character construct (e.g., an illusionist) being responded to in that method. In any other case, your greatest efforts turn into basically a random end result – and that will get boring and irritating. It appears higher to me to hammer out the small print with the DM, offline, so you realize your working parameters and may then begin to work inside the framework to make efficient contributions to the narrative.

*Edit: I am not condemning that response – judiciously used, it appears fairly honest and, considerably, it retains the sport shifting ahead. However over-use of that response is not very enjoyable, long run.


%d bloggers like this: