Topic: Who narrates the outcome of an action?

[Arioch]

I've realized that nowhere in the RM books it is said who must describe the outcome of the actions performed by a character. The books just say "see table XXX to see if the action is succesful or not", but they never tell who must interpret the result.
In some games this depend on the result itself (if the action is succesful the player controlling the character describe its outcome, otherwise the failure is described by his "opponent", usually the GM), in others it's always the GM.
What about Rolemaster? Have I missed that bit? How do you rule it? Is there an official ruling about it? 

[markc]

 I as GM generally describe what happens to the PC and they can do with it as the seem fit. Sometimes I take the PC aside so as other cannot hear what is said; other times I write notes or if it is not important just tell the whole group.
MDC

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I have always felt that it is up to the GM to narrate the results.

1) The player declares their intended actions.
2) The GM decides Difficulty and other modifiers.
3) The player rolls, applying all modifiers.
4) The result is looked up on the table (doesn't matter who does the look-up).
5) The GM narrates the results as they are applied to the intended action.

The thing to remember is that the tables cannot cover every situation. The best that they can do is to give generalities, which then have to be interpreted accordingly, and that interpretation is part of the job of being GM.

[Nejira]

I have always felt that it is up to the GM to narrate the results.

The thing to remember is that the tables cannot cover every situation. The best that they can do is to give generalities, which then have to be interpreted accordingly, and that interpretation is part of the job of being GM.

That´s how I always seen it too. I also only use the tables as a guideline. EG: I keep the mechanics (stun, bleed, hits, etc) but if the description doesn´t fit I change it.

[Arioch]

As usual, all the dirty work is up to the GM! 

Jokes apart, I brought this up because I felt it was an interesting dilemma: narration done by the GM probably led to more coherence/control on the gameflow, while letting the players narrate their succesful actions helps them visualize the scene and stimulates their creativity.

That´s how I always seen it too. I also only use the tables as a guideline. EG: I keep the mechanics (stun, bleed, hits, etc) but if the description doesn´t fit I change it.

Yes, expecially with crit tables I always felt that the descriptive text was there just for flavor (if you apply it to the letter often you end up with comical situations, expecially if you're fighting against animals or non-human opponents). Actually, I would like to see flavor text and mechanics even more separated (in RMFRP the symbols in the crit tables make it easier to distinguish between the two, but some "mechanical" bit are still left in the descriptive text).