Action resolution (as per April 24 Rule of Three)

[Morrus]

So when a player says to me/the party "Hey, I could probably bash this door down instead of unlocking it." Given that I probably didn't make an indestructible door, but might have been hoping for the party to take a more subtle route, I may not have considered that.

So, while I may go "okay, you can make that check", it was really the player who decided that that check was available to them.

But in your example he's described what he's doing. He's deciding that an action is available to him, not a check. He doesn't know a check's required. He doesn't know if you'll say "I'll need a STR check" or simply "It flies open easily". So it works in that example.

You'd need examples where he's not describing his action and only using the game mechanic, which is what I'm saying this approach to skills will naturally tend to veer away from.

 

[Scribble]

Yes...and no, again I think this is variable depending on the table. I don't think all tables should come down to the proverbial "mother may I", but sometimes a DM just doesn't think of a specific action as open when something comes up. So when a player says to me/the party "Hey, I could probably bash this door down instead of unlocking it." Given that I probably didn't make an indestructible door, but might have been hoping for the party to take a more subtle route, I may not have considered that.

So, while I may go "okay, you can make that check", it was really the player who decided that that check was available to them.

I think this is kind of the heart of the matter here. It's a system that tries to give you a way to resolve actions without getting too specific.

For instance, we have an Intimidate skill, for when you want to intimidate someone with Charisma (force of will) but what if like in the example, you know you're just really strong, and want to try it by showing off your strength? We don't really have a skill to represent that.

We could add another one... like strength intimidate or something, and maybe add one for each stat... the skill list would get huge. What's worse is (right or wrong) SOME feel that if it's not on the skill list, it can't be done.

This system instead attempts to say, rather then a huge list of skills, we have a small list of stats that describe your key abilities. YOU decide which best fits what you would use to resolve the action.

It both says you can try anything instead of a list, while at the same time giving the DM an idea about how to resolve it.



I think it's good because it gives those people who just want to say what they do a way to do that, AND it gives people who just want numbers they can rely on a way to do that as well.

 

[tuxgeo]

But the player still isn't saying, "I can get through that door with a strength check," he's saying "I'm going to try to bash the door down."

Alright, but in this case it comes down to the same thing. He's just speaking Roleish instead of Rollese.

And that's the desired effect, isn't it? That's what the 5ENext team is trying to find ways to nudge players toward: as you said, "speaking Roleish instead of Rollese."

[Nice coinage of phrase, by the way; I wanted to drop some XP on you for it, but couldn't yet.]

 

[Essenti]

Others who answered before me did so more clearly than I....

At any rate... "Mother may I," I have seen that phrase bandied about in these and other forums. I don't understand the hostile reaction to the core D&D mechanic "Say what you are doing, and the DM adjudicates" and beligerrently referring to it as "mother may I". At the most basic level, this is a game of pretend with weird shaped dice thrown around and sometimes we use little plastic dolls too. We're playing a game of make-believe here!

 

[Crazy Jerome]

"Mother may I," I have seen that phrase bandied about in these and other forums. I don't understand the hostile reaction to the core D&D mechanic "Say what you are doing, and the DM adjudicates" and beligerrently referring to it as "mother may I". At the most basic level, this is a game of pretend with weird shaped dice thrown around and sometimes we use little plastic dolls too. We're playing a game of make-believe here!

The phrase "Mother May I" is not a rejection of DM adjudication wholesale, but a claim that some things should be outside the realm of DM adjudication. Of course, no one really disputes that, when you take it to extremes:

PC: "I want my character to eat dinner, here in this nice peaceful inn, when I have plenty of money, and nothing is going on, unless you are about to spring something."

DM: "You have to roll to get your money out, with a -2 for sassing me, and then also roll to eat without getting indigestion."

Naturally, the disputes arise where something is really on the line. I've got a healing potion with a known amount of healing in it (identified, not poison or something else), I've got the appropriate action available, and the potion is at hand. Don't make me ask before I drink it.

Moreover, while called "Mother May I," the effect is felt on both sides of the screen. I don't want to ask for something that I can handle myself, and when DM, I don't want to field such questions, either. It's a waste of game time. It's also a waste of my limited mental resources when the next question that arises might require some real DM adjudication.

 

[the Jester]

Alright, but in this case it comes down to the same thing. He's just speaking Roleish instead of Rollese.

But that's exactly the whole point.

But in your example he's described what he's doing. He's deciding that an action is available to him, not a check. He doesn't know a check's required. He doesn't know if you'll say "I'll need a STR check" or simply "It flies open easily". So it works in that example.

You'd need examples where he's not describing his action and only using the game mechanic, which is what I'm saying this approach to skills will naturally tend to veer away from.

Right.

 

[sheadunne]

Here's how I've felt skills have evolved (AD&D - 4e, no BECMI)

1e
Player: I try to intimidate him by crushing my mug
DM: Okay, roll your ummmm, let's say Cha
Player: Cha?
DM: Yeah, You're putting on a show, that's personality
Player: But I'm flexing my muscles, acting all scary tough
DM: Fine, make a Str check

2e
Player: I try to intimidate him by crushing my mug
DM: Okay, let's see, did you take intimidate as one of your non-weapon proficiencies?
Player: Yep
DM: Okay, make a Cha check
Player: Cha? but it says Str or Cha
DM: Yep, but I think it's more Cha
Player: But I'm flexing my muscles, acting all scary tough
DM: Fine, make a Str check

3e
Player: I try to intimidate him by crushing my mug
DM: Okay, make an intimidate check
Player: Okay, I add my str to the roll
DM: Intimidate is a Cha roll?
Player: I took the feat that let's me add my str to intimidate checks
DM; Fine, make a Str check

4e
Player: I try to intimidate him by crushing my mug
DM: Okay, make an intimidate check
Player: I rolled an 18
DM: Okay, you succeed
Player: Does he start talking?
DM: Not yet, the Rogue needs to succeed on his bluff check

5e
Player: I try to intimidate him by crushing my mug
DM: Okay, roll your ummmm, let's say Cha
Player: Cha?
DM: Yeah, You're putting on a show, that's personality
Player: But I'm flexing my muscles, acting all scary tough
DM: Fine, make a Str check

 

[sheadunne]

Basically what I'm trying to say is, it doesn't appear that the designers have followed the logic of the evolution of skills.

1e
No skills, just abilities checks (excluding the guide books), left up to the DM to decide. Created uneccessary work for the DM which lead to

2e
Too many skills, many of which weren't particular useful and many were redundant.

3e
Simplified skill list, to the point where fighters were left with one or two skills.

4e
Further simplified skill list, but opened it up more to the players to decide what skills they wanted

5e
Back to the DM doesn't have a guide on what ability scores to attach simple actions to. Now 5e might provide a very good "guide" to skills. I still worry about player/DM argument over which ability score to use. Just the simple act of breaking a mug to intimidate someone can be argued as either str or cha. Once a player knows how the DM is going to rule those types of actions, he'll either stop breaking mugs or constantly break mugs. Either way, his meta-knowledge is there and it will be used. It's not a good enough reason to stop having skills list.

 

[P1NBACK]

Basically what I'm trying to say is, it doesn't appear that the designers have followed the logic of the evolution of skills.

1e
No skills, just abilities checks (excluding the guide books), left up to the DM to decide. Created uneccessary work for the DM which lead to

Except... 1E had an actual resolution system for reactions (DMG page 63) that didn't "leave it up to the DM". So, it seems like you weren't using the rules if you were doing it this way.

 

[Essenti]

...
5e
...

Player: I try to intimidate him by crushing my mug!
DM: Okay, your Str is 16 and you easily crush the mug, give me a Cha check.
Player: Cha?
DM: Yep, your will versus his, but add a +2 for that mug trick.
Player: Okay, I score an 18!
DM: He shivers noticeably and then looks away.

**Fixed it for you