I think that it should be pretty natural for most anyone to articulate a goal and an approach to achieving that goal. Kids can do it, so why all of a sudden do some people seem unable?
<snip>
When a player doesn't give me a clear goal and approach, which actually happened once in my Saturday session, I just ask them to restate what they want to achieve and how they go about it. I'm not looking for flowery language or "active roleplay" as the Basic Rules calls it (first person) - just a clear statement so I can adjudicate. Evocative description and interactions are just a bonus that have nothing to do with my adjudication.
When GMing I want my players to engage the fiction of the game in their action declarations. I don't mind if they also connect this to mechanics, although ultimately that is a matter of adjudication by the referee.
The 4e DMG talks about it this way (p 74):
Sometimes, a player tells you, "I want to make a Diplomacy check to convince the duke that helping us is in his best interest." That’s great - the player has told you what she’s doing and what skill she’s using to do it. Other times, a player will say, "I want to make a Diplomacy check." In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill. Sometimes, characters [sic] do the opposite: "I want to scare the duke into helping us.” It’s up to you, then, to decide which skill the character is using and call for the appropriate check.
I think that last example - "I want to scare the duke into helping us" - is uncertain as it stands, and so can't be resolved (is the player planning a Banquo's ghost style scare via a Phantasmal Force spell? or is the character suggesting that s/he has a friend with a pretty big sledgehammer who likes visiting and busting up palaces?), although in the context of an actual episode of play it's meaning might be quite clear.
The passage takes for granted that checks are going to be called for. That's because it's in the context of advice on running skill challenges, which inherently involve checks most of the time. I'll come back to that.
This works quite well for areas that are both tangible and where the DM has any form of grounding and is capable of making reasonable judgement calls. It fails for 'soft' goals or where the DM is incapable of making reasonable judgement calls.
I have some sympathy for this - I have players who aren't that good at giving speeches in character, for instance, and so tend to describe their Diplomacy in slightly awkward 3rd person - but mostly I think this shows that what counts as "specifying an approach" (or, what in Burning Wheel is called "task" as opposed to "intent") is a matter of degree. "I scare the duke into helping us" is a description of an approach, but - as I said - lacks sufficient specificity for adjudication in the typical fantasy RPG.
The suggestions upthread that it would be enough to say "I engage in small talk, ingratiating myself with others while trying to extract data from innuendo, leading questions, and the like" is interesting, because that certainly leaves some details potentially relevant to resolution unspecified. Eg what language are you using? What gossip do you spread? (Some gossip might merit a bonus, other gossip might make the attempt fail automatically!) Who are you focusing on? (Might be relevant if an NPC is trying to do something stealthily.) Etc.
For me, the upshot of this is that there is no
canonical way of specifying what counts as adequate engagement with the fiction. It depends on the give and take between players and GM in the particular circumstances of adjudication. Sometimes this might mean the GM does make assumptions - eg if no language is specified, but most of the game's action takes place in Common, the GM will reasonably assume that is the language being used even if the PC also speaks other languages. And sometimes I think this means the GM is entitled to ask more questions - but if doing this will itself give something away, the GM might reasonably make an assumption instead (which could be stated to the player eg instead of "Who do you try to ingratiate yourself with?", which - in the context of the negotiations with the duke - might seed the thought that some other NPC is worthy of attention, I think it is reasonable for the GM to say "I take it that your efforts at ingratiation are aimed at the duke" - thus putting the onus on the player to identify some other NPC as his/her object of attention if s/he wants to).
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.
one other thing I do is I remind players that the d20 is not their friend. It will kill them and everyone they've ever loved given half a chance. So why would you ASK to roll a die? In a game where the DM decides success, failure, or uncertainty - and only in the latter case do we roll - doesn't it make sense to try your best to remove uncertainty so you don't have to roll? That means gathering information, taking precautions, and otherwise trying to achieve automatic success. It's not always possible, of course, due to the fictional circumstances at play, but why on earth would you ask to involve that fickle d20?
I see this as relating to [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION]'s comment about "reasonable judgement calls". The idea that moments of crisis or climax in the game would be resolved by GM judgement in this way is very reminiscent of classic D&D.
For my own part, I prefer the "Say 'yes' or roll the dice approach" - the GM says 'yes' if nothing is at stake in the action declaration, but when the dramatic crunch is on the GM calls for a roll. In other words the dice are a "uncertainty via pacing" device, not an "uncertainty via ingame causation" device. Some version of this approach, I think, is what is informing the assumption in the 4e rules that when the crunch is on in a skill challenge, checks will be made.
