edited 08-21-2025 after some feedback, shortening and breaking into sections
One thing I picked up playing with some of the old Twin Cities referees is how action-oriented their tables are, especially from the player-side. Referees encouraged players not to ask, “What does the scroll say?” They encourage them to say things like said, “I try to decipher the scroll,” or “I glance at the diagrams, seeing if I recognize them.”
That shift, from asking about the world to acting within it is a subtle change to the game that provides many benefits, and while it is not a be-all end-all solution, where possible it is worthwhile to try.
The Scroll Example
Imagine a cursed scroll, something Evil Dead-style where reading it unleashes a great evil.
Player: “What does it say?”
Referee: Now they either describe the curse being unleashed, something the player might feel was a gotcha, or they ask “Do you read it?” which is a suspicious question that reveals more about the situation than perhaps is desired. The game potentially now turns into an abstract Q&A
vs.
Player: “I read the scroll, trying to make sense of it,” or “I glance at the sigils on the leaf, trying to recall any of them from my studies in the Grave Cult”
Referee: Understands clear intent, and may follow with results in-fiction.
In the second case, the game is in motion. No hedging, no backpedaling. Just a character describing action and desired resolution.
Why It Works
By explaining what the character is doing, and the intent they are trying to achieve, the referee knows exactly what the stakes are and how to deliver the information.
The world responds to action, not to abstract questions. Information is best received in game when there are risks and rewards present in gathering this information.
Instead of probing the referee for lore, players test the world directly. This encourages that thing often described in FKR play as inhabiting. It’s not method acting per say, but its thinking of the fiction from an entity within it.
I’m not saying Q&A play is wrong, verbal and textual communication is always flawed. Sometimes “What shape is the room?” is more efficient than the alternative. But when play turns into endless querying to avoid risk, something that can happen particularly in OSR-style play (although it exists in all styles and communities) it drifts from the kind of game I want, one of danger, surprises, and weird, fantastic consequences.
Not Just Reckless
Action-oriented phrasing isn’t about thoughtless actions, leaping into traps blind and rushing head-first into combat (all the time). It’s just as useful for cautious play:
“I tap the floor with my spear, testing for hollows.”
“I smell the vial, looking for any hints of its nature.”
“I put my back to the door frame, and using a mirror, I produce a reflection from the area where we heard that scuttling.”
It keeps information-gathering inside the fiction. We know how this information is gathered. It’s not detached lore spouting, nor is it the style of stepping into a room and declaring that you’re “rolling perception” (a fate I do not wish upon my greatest enemy referees).
The Payoff
I don’t care much about “immersion,” as I have mentioned before, but this style does something that I think some folks seeking immersion look for – it pulls you into thinking as your character, not as a quizzer at the table. And that makes the game richer, stranger, and ultimately more fun.
Tell me what you think, your style of narrating as a player, and anything I may have missed. Thank you!
I like this. I don’t feel like you’re saying anything surprising to me, but you’re making more concrete some things I haven’t clearly expressed before.
Also, I appreciate your lack of dogmatism – the room for other approaches where applicable.
A thought: I don’t insist on it, but this is why I strongly encourage accents (silly or otherwise) for speaking in-character. There will always be the need for OOC discussion between the players. But it’s often unclear whether a character actually said something, or whether the player just speculated about it. And a single sentence from a player can slide backward and forward across that “in-fiction” line. Hence: accents.
The accents things is a good idea, and should be encouraged if you include things like simply raising or lowering the pitch of your voice.
However, some people don’t roleplay like that, so other cues could be used, like body language (puffing up your chest when your bold fighter speaks, leaning forward or leaning back).
Nice post. One older AD&D GM I had often had this quote from someone, “Tell me what you do, not what you can do,” or something along those lines. Not sure on the origins of it though–any ideas who it might be from?
Like you say, I think the hypothetical/questioning style is often from players trying to mitigate risk and gain more information without having to risk. The advantage (for players) is that it often encourages the GMs to pause and ask for confirmation for risky actions (“do you really open the chest?”), which then gives the players a chance to reconsider and avoid the trap.
It’s also interesting that, while clarifying intentions can help avoid miscommunication, there are plenty of cases where they don’t really matter all too much. Like if you step off a 100′ cliff, it doesn’t matter whether your intention was to fly or not–you’re still going to fall to your death. So over-focus on intentions can hurt that fidelity a bit.
> It’s also interesting that, while clarifying intentions can help avoid miscommunication, there are plenty of cases where they don’t really matter all too much. Like if you step off a 100′ cliff, it doesn’t matter whether your intention was to fly or not–you’re still going to fall to your death. So over-focus on intentions can hurt that fidelity a bit.
This is interesting and is definitely true. I think one can get too focused on describing intended outcomes, but sometimes its useful in revealing an understanding gap between the referee and player. If a player steps off the cliff but they intend to, I dunno walk along an invisible bridge they thought the referee described, the referee can be like “oh wait I was being poetic with my language about the wind” (maybe not the best example, but I think you get the picture).
“What is [PC name] intending to do?”
I ask this too often as I do feel my players are too risk adverse. This article has helped put a finger on it and has given me some vocabulary to use with my players!
As a GM, if the players were to use this action-oriented language, I would definitely give them a fair shake at environmental awareness, so as not to discourage their actions.