How to get better at describing actions, not rolls

[iserith]

How helpful can it be for you to ask me how and have me open the book and read the skill description aloud?

Assuming there is nothing wrong with your memory, you'd only need to look it up once! I'm fine with that. And again, this depends on the game system. This conversation was happening in the D&D 5e forum. Not all RPGs have the same expectations.

I'll add that this topic was in the context of my personal objection to the DM describing the actions of the character for the players which seems to be a very common approach these days. I would not be best pleased at an expectation that you say "I use my Conversation skill" and the DM is to fill in the details on what you do. That gets the basic conversation of the game backwards, as far as my reading of D&D 5e is concerned.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Intent? Sure. I want to collect intel on X from the partygoers using the Conversation skill. There's intent and approach. Anything more detailed regarding 'how' isn't coming from me. Another player may chip in with a suggestion or two and I'll say "Like that."

For the most part, those of us asking for players to say how their character is doing something are really just looking for "I try to collect intel on X from partygoers through chit-chat" (or you could end the sentence 'by asking' or 'with implication something bad will happen if I don't get the intel') instead of "I try to collect intel on X from partygoers using the Conversation skill."

Nothing more than saying what the character is doing in it's most basic form, rather than saying which game mechanic you think will be relevant.

Another example: We ask for "I try to charm the bar maid into giving a discount." rather than "I try to get a discount from the bar maid with my Charisma score."

 

[Imaculata]

I've slowly but surely gotten my players used to the idea that they shouldn't ask for rolls, but simply state an approach and goal. The better their approach, the more likely it is that they may not need to make a roll at all.

I've also been experimenting with having my players narrate what their magic spells look like. For example, if the priest uses a water spell, then the water is probably conjured up from a nearby pond. And if the druid starts casting a lightning spell, then obviously this also creates these big menacing dark clouds above them. And while none of these descriptions actually make the spells more or less effective, I am trying to get my players out of the game mechanics mind set, and get them to visualize what magic actually looks like. This has the added bonus that my players can now often identify the source of a spell, based on its looks, and specifically its color. They know that certain types of evil powers have their own unique magical flavor.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I've also been experimenting with having my players narrate what their magic spells look like.

I've been working on that as a DM too (and I mean not just getting the players to do this, but to remember to do it myself), especially since we just started playing the Scarred Lands setting (my favorite) and arcane magic creates minor environmental disturbance (heat, light, wilting of plants, and so on) so the description of what the characters are seeing tells the players relevant information (above and beyond what the spell being cast is, which I already tell them for reasons of running the game with full transparency).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I am on both sides of this discussion.

I have had many players who, for various reasons, ranging from inexperience gaming to social awkwardness who, like Nagol, have benefited from others (DM or players) helping them out with suggestions.

Some prefer it done for them all the time, while others catch on and do it themselves after enough coaching.

I came to the conclusion that Iserith and I (correct me if I'm wrong, Iserith) are actually looking for the same result - the character's actions being clearly articulated. (I also don't need particularly "flowery" descriptions).

Where we differ, I believe, is that he's seen too many DMs steamroll over player intent or teach players to be vague by doing it for them, whereas I have seen players rise to great skill by being given good example, or, in cases like Nagol's, be able to enjoy the game without being pressured out of a comfort zone.

Sent from my LG-D852 using EN World mobile app

 

[Imaculata]

I've been working on that as a DM too (and I mean not just getting the players to do this, but to remember to do it myself), especially since we just started playing the Scarred Lands setting (my favorite) and arcane magic creates minor environmental disturbance (heat, light, wilting of plants, and so on) so the description of what the characters are seeing tells the players relevant information (above and beyond what the spell being cast is, which I already tell them for reasons of running the game with full transparency).

How magic affects the environment is an excellent touch. I also try to be consistent regarding what certain spells look like whenever certain deities/forces are invoked.

For example, when I told my players that they saw an army of skeleton-pirates, with bright glowing green eyes, they immediately knew that these were the powers of Hydra at work. And when they later found a green glowing magic circle, they understood that this was probably what was powering the undead. So they dispelled the circle, and low and behold, all the skeletons crumbled. (This also was a great way to stop the players from going through the whole dungeon to kill every skeleton, after already reaching their goal).

My players also understand that they shouldn't physically touch anything corrupted by Hydra, because the corruption can spread. And I have another evil power that always appears in the form of vermin. I've created a sort of logic to the way magic looks. My players have embraced this idea, by also giving their own special flavor to their spells. So rather than saying: "I cast Entangle", they would now say: "I use my Entangle spell to conjure seaweed up from the sea to entangle the monsters". Or they would say: "I cast Manyjaws, and they take the shape of blue Piranhas".

 

[iserith]

I came to the conclusion that Iserith and I (correct me if I'm wrong, Iserith) are actually looking for the same result - the character's actions being clearly articulated. (I also don't need particularly "flowery" descriptions).

Where we differ, I believe, is that he's seen too many DMs steamroll over player intent or teach players to be vague by doing it for them, whereas I have seen players rise to great skill by being given good example, or, in cases like Nagol's, be able to enjoy the game without being pressured out of a comfort zone

Based on my observation of many games, including some very popular podcasts, I think the approach of the DM describing the character's actions when he or she should (according to the basic conversation of the game) only be narrating the results goes far beyond "offering examples" to the players. It's an approach all its own. I stop short of calling it "steamrolling" because that can imply a bad intent on the part of the DM when I'm sure most DMs who do this aren't thinking about it in that way. They just sort of fell into doing it for various reasons.

Given that I believe players are capable of articulating at least a basic goal and approach from a very young age, I don't think describing their actions for them is doing them any favors. My recommendation is to simply ask them to be more clear about what they want to achieve and how they go about it without reference to game mechanics. The game mechanics in D&D 5e are for the DM to use to resolve uncertainty. Asking to use them in lieu of describing a goal and approach not only forces others to assume the actual things the character is doing in the game world (and you know what they say about assumptions), but it's not even very smart play in my view, given this is a game where the DM decides on success or failure. As I see it, rolling is tantamount to failure. I certainly would not want to ask to make a check because it's asking for a chance to fail. I judge my own success as a player by how often I avoid rolling (among other metrics).

In my experience, when I have explained that to people, it changes their habits almost immediately.

 

[Pickles III]

Is it as simple as getting the players to state their intent in natural language without using game mechanics?


I am running for a bunch of very new players at the moment & only the not so new one ever asks to roll things rather than wait for my determination of how to resolve their actions.

Based on my observation of many games, including some very popular podcasts, I think the approach of the DM describing the character's actions when he or she should (according to the basic conversation of the game) only be narrating the results goes far beyond "offering examples" to the players. It's an approach all its own. I stop short of calling it "steamrolling" because that can imply a bad intent on the part of the DM when I'm sure most DMs who do this aren't thinking about it in that way. They just sort of fell into doing it for various reasons.

I hate this DM control of my character thing with a passion. Though its worse than railroading & anyway railroading is not done with malic a forethought either (often)

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

One approach could be to give bonuses based on good narrative from the players. I’m certainly more likely to give someone an easier DC if they say “at the party I grab a glass of wine from a server, smile at everyone, and try to dazzle them with a witty tale” than “I use persuasion to make them like me.”

Part of being a good player is being engaged and immersed in the game. I don’t need minutiae, but I do want people to care enough to be a part of the communal world.

As an aside, I also hate when players just come at me with “with a roll of 24, what happens.” Especially when I haven’t even called for a roll. I’m much more likely to say “okay, but what are you doing?”

 

[Imaculata]

Given that I believe players are capable of articulating at least a basic goal and approach from a very young age, I don't think describing their actions for them is doing them any favors.

I would personally be very annoyed if the DM simply made up what my character does. Especially if that approach then results in failure.

For example, lets say I wanted to disarm a trap, and the DM decided that my character did something that resulted in the trap activating. Regardless of the roll involved, I would probably come up with an approach for my character that would get around the most obvious pitfalls. If for example I was trying to disarm a poison dart trap, my character would probably make sure their face was not right in front of the business end of the trap. I would be ticked off if the DM presumed such stupidity on my behalf. That is I think why it is important for DM's to allow their players to narrate their own approach.