D&D 5E At Your 5E Table, How Is It Agreed upon That the PCs Do Stuff Other than Attack?

[SteveC]

This is getting to be a pretty nuanced discussion about how to resolve actions. I find it fascinating! I am a "tell me your intent and method" person, but I want to do this in as natural a way as possible, where you just have a conversation with the GM. With that said, I think I have a couple of comments that I hope can be helpful:

The most common reason for problems with the GM not resolving an action in a way that makes sense for the player comes from a misunderstanding about what the circumstances and the exact situation looked like. As the GM you have a picture of what the world looks like in your head. It is very difficult to link that up with what the players think the situation looks like without a lot of practice and group familiarity.

The way I resolve that is (and I'm going to use a PbtA term here, please forgive me...) by being a fan of the characters. When a player tells me what they want their character to do, I want to translate it so that it looks as close to what they want to do in what I consider to be the actual picture of the situation. If I can't do that because it's way off, I tell them.

I have played in many games (thankfully not for a long time) where you had "gotcha" moments where the GM interpreted everything literally to the point where you'd fall in a pit if you didn't mention you were looking down. That's not interesting to me in any way, and it results in characters making torturously exact statements about what they want to do that slow the game to a crawl. That was not fun.

The second and related point is to assume the things the characters are good at the things they have created characters to be good at. How do you search for traps? How do you convince the prince to help you out? How do you attack the ogre? I'll be honest, I don't know the answer to any of those questions. Yes, I have some skill in all three of those areas, but I'm also not an expert in them and also not in a potentially life threatening situation.

The real answer to each of those questions is "the best way my character thinks they can do it." But at the same time, we play rpgs to be more interactive than just saying that every time we need a decision (followed by a die roll). If a player proceeds tell me they are taking an odd approach to something their character is good at, I'll tend to roll with it and see what kind of a check they give. Maybe being rude to the prince can work out. I know someone who's amazingly persuasive and I've seen stranger things work in real life. And also, maybe precisely measuring out the weight of a statue and swapping it with a bag of the same weight won't work (just ask Indy about that).

Those are some ideas I've brought to running games like D&D or Pathfinder from the world of more narrative games.

 

[Charlaquin]

It can be, and often is, entirely obvious what a player is trying to achieve when saying they want to roll a perception check. I'm really not sure how you can think otherwise given how often I've seen it as pretty much every table I've played at in the 5E era.

In these instances it is a shorthand for the the longer description you are requiring. It ends up meaning the same thing ... but just comes out in a fraction of the time.

It does not, in fact, mean the same thing. “I make a perception check” does not convey any information about what the player wants to perceive or how the character is going about trying to perceive it. It just doesn’t. You might be able to assume those things, but I specifically want to avoid having to make those assumptions. Primarily because I don’t think it’s appropriate for me as the DM to establish for the player what their character is doing, secondarily because leaving those things unstated makes the fictional activity too abstract for my taste, and tertiarily because such assumptions aren’t always correct, and mismatched assumptions can lead to conflict at the table (e.g. the “I didn’t say I wanted to touch it” problem; that’s fine, but then say what you do want to do so I don’t have the opportunity to make that incorrect assumption).

So if it means the same thing, why is it potentially a bad thing to ask them to spell it out?

For one thing, pacing. Detail is slow. Detail kills momentum. Drawn out detail can be used to create suspense ... but it also inherently slows the pace.

Drawn out detail is not something I demand. Indeed, I prefer action declarations to be brief and direct. It does not take significantly more time to say “I remain alert for signs of danger” than “I make a perception check.” It’s literally two more words.

It is great for tension, like in a good gothic horror tale - but lousy for high modern action movie moments like you'd find in Marvel or John Wick movies. Robert Jordan was lousy with this in Wheel of Time as he hampered his action sequences in ways that read more like an encoclopedia entry than exciting and engaging storytelling that leap from one climax to the next. Geesh - Robert - We don't need to know the history of the weaver that wove the carpet that the Trolloc stepped on! Just read this paragraph and look at how the addition of more and more language slows the point and changes the tone.

I am well aware of the importance of pacing. You know what kills pacing in a D&D game? Playing 20 questions instead of committing to an action the DM can resolve. Or worse, arguing with the DM because they made an incorrect assumption about how you imagined your character performing the action. Just imagine what your character does and then say that and the game runs much more smoothly in my experience.

For another thing, it is repetitive. Repeating the same style over and over creates a monotone approach. Training players to answer in a certain way, every time, lest the face a request to rephrase ... well, you may get the Pavlovian response you're seeking, but it ends up providing a similar element to all of your action and storytelling. As you change pace, verbiage, and tonality in your voice players naturally adjust their own - and pushing them back towards the requested method of response hampers your own ability to move the story in different directions.

Additionally, it boxes you into holes as a DM. Every approach has limitations. Some reveal too much information. Some hide too much. Some create too much tension. Others result in not enough. Some encourage comedy, while others discourage it. By using a variety of methods, and especially by allowing them to flow dynamically and naturally as players respond to the stimulation you provide, you can work around the limitations that come with any one approach. Pulling players back into one structure over and over limits your versatility.

my experience has been that my approach accomplishes everything I want it to. I can do moments of high tension, moments of high action, moments of levity, and anything in-between to good effect.

 

[Lanefan]

For one thing, pacing. Detail is slow. Detail kills momentum. Drawn out detail can be used to create suspense ... but it also inherently slows the pace. It is great for tension, like in a good gothic horror tale - but lousy for high modern action movie moments like you'd find in Marvel or John Wick movies.

The modern action movie vibe - all action all the time with occasional bits of character development shoehorned in here and there - might not be what everyone is shooting for.

Robert Jordan was lousy with this in Wheel of Time as he hampered his action sequences in ways that read more like an encoclopedia entry than exciting and engaging storytelling that leap from one climax to the next. Geesh - Robert - We don't need to know the history of the weaver that wove the carpet that the Trolloc stepped on!

In an RPG where it's important that everyone is sharing something close to the same imagination, more detail is almost invariably better than less.

And if all you're doing is leaping from climax to climax, two problems quickly arise. One, the intervening details become lost, resulting in a shallower and narrower imagination of the characters and setting. Two, when everything's a climax nothing is, leading to a sequence of "how do I top that?" that rarely if ever ends well.

Pacing? Pshaw. There's always next session for what doesn't get done tonight.

For another thing, it is repetitive. Repeating the same style over and over creates a monotone approach. Training players to answer in a certain way, every time, lest the face a request to rephrase ... well, you may get the Pavlovian response you're seeking, but it ends up providing a similar element to all of your action and storytelling. As you change pace, verbiage, and tonality in your voice players naturally adjust their own - and pushing them back towards the requested method of response hampers your own ability to move the story in different directions.

Additionally, it boxes you into holes as a DM. Every approach has limitations. Some reveal too much information. Some hide too much. Some create too much tension. Others result in not enough. Some encourage comedy, while others discourage it. By using a variety of methods, and especially by allowing them to flow dynamically and naturally as players respond to the stimulation you provide, you can work around the limitations that come with any one approach. Pulling players back into one structure over and over limits your versatility.

With this, I largely agree.

 

[Lanefan]

It also works the other way though. People are lazy. You let them get away with, "Perception check" on a regular basis, that's all you're going to get from them, and they'll complain if you later ask for more.

Or see it as a metagame red flag and adjust their characters' actions.

 

[Charlaquin]

I can see why people asking for details for searching a room or disabling a trap even if I don't care for it. But perception checks? If my PC is asking for a perception check, what options are there? Where you have to ask for specifics? Yes, that is pixel bitching. I can't think of any other phrase that fits.

In past games I have allowed people to notice all sorts of things with perception checks. Perhaps you don't see anything but you smell the stench of troglodytes. Perhaps you can't see that invisible creature but you can hear it. Maybe it's a ghost and the air suddenly becomes chilled. The air pressure changes suddenly and there's a small gust of wind as someone opens a hatch. The things people can sense are only limited to the imagination of the DM describing the scene.

If a DM gives you information about something you hear when you said you looked around then saying you look around is effectively asking for a perception check using different words. If it's not, then as a player I would start a check list. Every time I wanted to make a perception check I would say "I look around, listen carefully, do I notice anything?" If the DM then says I didn't ask for smell, I'd add smell to the checklist and ask for it next time. All along all I really wanted was a perception check, stopping for a moment paying close attention to all my senses. If "I stop for a moment and pay close attention to all my senses to see if I notice anything unusual" works, then all that's been accomplished is replacing 2 words with 20.

Maybe there's something I'm missing. Maybe there's something added to the declarations that make the game more engaging for people. But details are almost never forthcoming when asked. All I can say is that I have never played in, seen, nor even heard of anyone outside of this message board require goal and approach for something like perception checks.

I suspect the thing you’re missing is that most of these details (the change in air pressure or temperature, the smell of troglodyte stench, etc) would, under this paradigm, just be included in the description of the environment, without the player needing to make a perception check to detect them. In some cases, if the detail is particularly difficult to notice, it might or might not be described depending on passive perception. But these sorts of general “I look (and listen and smell) around because I want more detail” checks aren’t really necessary in my style of play. When perception checks are made in my game, it’s usually because the player is actively trying to find something specific. Ambient detail should, in my view, be rolled into the description of the environment in the first place.

 

[Lanefan]

How did people do it before ability checks or skill checks? They said what they wanted to do. And note that D&D 5e doesn't support the player asking for checks. That's the DM's role. Players asking for checks comes from previous versions of the game (or people learning from people who played previous versions of the game who brought that into D&D 5e).

Given that a failed roll results in a meaningful consequence for failure, why would I as a player even want to roll? You won't catch me asking to, and players at my table quickly learn that trusting your life to a d20 is not a great strategy if it can be avoided. Also that it's great to have Inspiration in your back pocket for when it can't be avoided (which is a very nice feedback loop that encourages consistent character portrayal).

As written this is a very 5e-based perspective, in that it incorporates what to me are two of 5e's worst rules, bolded above.

IMO "Nothing Happens" should always be a possible consequence when it makes sense in the fiction, and meta-mechanics such as Inspiration can go die in a fire whenever they like.

 

[Lanefan]

Except what, exactly are they supposed to add? It's not like they know what they aren't currently perceiving. At best people are just adding extra words for no reason, at worst it's the ultimate pixel batching.

If they don't pixel-hunt they're going to miss stuff, end of story.

And sometimes that which they miss is gonna bite 'em where they don't want to be bit.

Making a perception check covers sight, smell, sound, vibration, feeling a change in the temperature or air, any number of things. It represents taking a moment and paying attention to all those things and probably one or two I didn't mention. Say "I look around carefully" and a gotcha DM is going to tell you that you see nothing because you needed to listen. Listen and you needed to smell.

If you're not a gotcha DM, then all those extra words are pointless because "Perception check?" tells you the player means to do all those things.

You're taking what are to me reasonable play expectations and putting them under the perjorative "gotcha DMing" label; though that said if someone says "I'm looking around" I assume they're using their other senses as well at least to a point.

 

[Lanefan]

I can see why people asking for details for searching a room or disabling a trap even if I don't care for it. But perception checks? If my PC is asking for a perception check, what options are there? Where you have to ask for specifics? Yes, that is pixel bitching. I can't think of any other phrase that fits.

And there is nothing - nothing! - wrong with pixel-hunting.

If a DM gives you information about something you hear when you said you looked around then saying you look around is effectively asking for a perception check using different words. If it's not, then as a player I would start a check list. Every time I wanted to make a perception check I would say "I look around, listen carefully, do I notice anything?" If the DM then says I didn't ask for smell, I'd add smell to the checklist and ask for it next time. All along all I really wanted was a perception check, stopping for a moment paying close attention to all my senses. If "I stop for a moment and pay close attention to all my senses to see if I notice anything unusual" works, then all that's been accomplished is replacing 2 words with 20.

Once an SOP or pattern of approach has been established then simply saying "I look the room over" is usually enough as the DM knows how to parse all the details.

But for these purposes let's assume that SOP hasn't been established yet. Now what?

 

[Charlaquin]

As written this is a very 5e-based perspective,

Well, yeah, 5e is what we’re talking v about, and the technique being discussed is specifically how we run 5e. I might run other games differently.

in that it incorporates what to me are two of 5e's worst rules, bolded above.
IMO "Nothing Happens" should always be a possible consequence when it makes sense in the fiction, and meta-mechanics such as Inspiration can go die in a fire whenever they like.

“Nothing happens” is often a possible consequence, if the attempt cost something. A common cost is time, provided that time is a valuable resource, such as when there’s a ticking clock or periodic checks for wandering monsters or other complications. But in cases where nothing is lost for trying, “nothing happens” isn’t a meaningful outcome.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, yeah, 5e is what we’re talking v about, and the technique being discussed is specifically how we run 5e. I might run other games differently.

“Nothing happens” is often a possible consequence, if the attempt cost something. A common cost is time, provided that time is a valuable resource, such as when there’s a ticking clock or periodic checks for wandering monsters or other complications. But in cases where nothing is lost for trying, “nothing happens” isn’t a meaningful outcome.

But if you're performing the same action, with the same die roll, why would the result be different if time isn't a factor? That sounds like narrative stuff to me.