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

[Deset Gled]

I’ve been at this almost 40 years and it comes up constantly. Typically when bad things happen to PCs. “I want to pick the lock” very quickly morphs into “I never said I actually pick the lock” once the referee assumes intentions equal actions and applies any consequences to the character based on the assumed action. Some players like to play word games as a shield against bad stuff happening to their PC. So either the player explicitly declares an action or their character doesn’t perform any actions. Having a clear idea of what they intended is really helpful to make sure everyone’s on the same page.

That sounds like bad communication, partially fueled by ingenuous statements, bordering on intentional deception. The distinction between actions and intentions is clearly not the root of these problems.

 

[Hriston]

You're missing an option: whether a roll is needed based solely on the player's description. For example describing how they disable a trap means no roll. Describing disabling is different from bypassing the trap altogether.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. As @overgeeked basically mentioned, when I say, "the DM decides whether an ability check is needed to resolve," that includes the possibility that the DM decides no roll is needed to determine the outcome of the action declaration. I'm not sure, though, what distinction you're drawing in your last sentence between disabling a trap and bypassing a trap. Can you elaborate on the gameplay you're imagining?

 

[Hriston]

Do you mean player decides action (as in the game Action) or player describes how they act?

For me I might decide a player choice is a free action, a bonus action, one attack of the attack action or an interact with object. The player doesn’t chose what action their act takes. Better that they describe what they want to do and I translate it into mechanics.

By "player describes action", I mean the player says what their character does, including how they go about trying to accomplish their intent.

 

[Lanefan]

1. Player describes action and intention
2. Player states ability and/or skill used
3. DM decides if ability ability and/or skill is applicable
4. DM decides if check is required
5. Player decides if they will continue

Re 5 - you mean that players/characters aren't committed to actions once they are declared?

For me, if-when it gets as far as 4 that's it - you're committed, no take-backs - and 5 would read "Resolution occurs, game proceeds".

 

[overgeeked]

Re 5 - you mean that players/characters aren't committed to actions once they are declared?

For me, if-when it gets as far as 4 that's it - you're committed, no take-backs - and 5 would read "Resolution occurs, game proceeds".

If even that far. Once the player declares the action, they're committed. The only exception is a miscommunication of the environment or setting. Like a PC diving out a window that's 100ft off the ground when the player thinks they're at ground level. The referee should verify that the player understands the situation properly, just in case. But only what the character would know in that situation. The player's ability to commit or back out is all contained in #2 below. They don't get to change their mind after they realize the referee is going to call for a check the player doesn't like. If the player wants a particular ability and skill combo, they can describe their action in a way that makes sense for that combo.

1a. Referee describes the environment.
1b. Players ask clarifying questions about what their characters would know about the environment.
1c. Referee answers only if the characters would know.
2a. Players describe their actions and intentions.
2b. Referee confirms the player understands the potential consequences, if the character would know them.
2c. Player commits to the action.
3a. Referee decides if the description is enough or if a check is required.
3b. Either the referee makes the check in secret (if necessary), or the player makes the check.
3c. Referee narrates the outcome.

 

[Clint_L]

Re 5 - you mean that players/characters aren't committed to actions once they are declared?

For me, if-when it gets as far as 4 that's it - you're committed, no take-backs - and 5 would read "Resolution occurs, game proceeds".

I think what they're getting at is the idea that there is room for negotiation as the DM clarifies the challenge. For example, a player might say something like, "I'm going to jump down into the pit, avoiding the spikes, so I can check for treasure," and the DM replies with, "That's next to impossible, but I'll let you do it on a DC 30 skill check." At that point, I would let the player change course on the grounds that they didn't fully understand how difficult it was, which suggests that I might not have described the situation adequately.

Generally, if a player declares an action that seems next to impossible, suicidal, etc. I will clarify what they are trying to do and how hard it is and give them a chance to change their mind. "You can certainly try, but as you approach the lava and the intensity of the heat hits you, it becomes obvious that running across it is a truly terrible idea." If the player still insists, well...I always ask them to have a back-up character ready to go.

 

[Charlaquin]

Worth noting that despite being flagged as specific to 5e the question and poll are, in their essence, applicable to any D&D edition.

They are, but it’s important to specify edition because some people handle this one way when running one edition and another way when running another.

 

[Charlaquin]

Other. Player describes actions. If I am unclear on what's happening, I ask questions, specially focused on player intent. Only when it is clear that a player's intent requires a roll should a roll occur. Once it has occurred, Let It Ride: a result holds true until there is a significant change in situation, not just "you moved again so you must sneak again." As soon as the roll is done, back to discussing actions and looking for intent when I'm not clear on something.

Players have a voice in whether a roll is warranted or not, but in 99%+ of cases it should be obvious that something requires rolling. We communicate and build a serious, real consensus and then move on with our game.

Sounds like primarily option 2, with option 1 also being acceptable.

 

[Charlaquin]

That sounds like bad communication, partially fueled by ingenuous statements, bordering on intentional deception. The distinction between actions and intentions is clearly not the root of these problems.

Clearly stating both action and intention would clear up that poor communication though.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think what they're getting at is the idea that there is room for negotiation as the DM clarifies the challenge. For example, a player might say something like, "I'm going to jump down into the pit, avoiding the spikes, so I can check for treasure," and the DM replies with, "That's next to impossible, but I'll let you do it on a DC 30 skill check." At that point, I would let the player change course on the grounds that they didn't fully understand how difficult it was, which suggests that I might not have described the situation adequately.

Generally, if a player declares an action that seems next to impossible, suicidal, etc. I will clarify what they are trying to do and how hard it is and give them a chance to change their mind. "You can certainly try, but as you approach the lava and the intensity of the heat hits you, it becomes obvious that running across it is a truly terrible idea." If the player still insists, well...I always ask them to have a back-up character ready to go.

Yes! That, to me, is an important step. Just as I might misinterpret a player’s action or intention if they don’t state both clearly, they might misinterpret the difficulty or the stakes if I don’t state both clearly. Making explicit statements of all of those things a standard part of the process removes a lot of opportunities for miscommunication and insures the game runs smoothly as silk drenched in butter.