"Reasonable expectations of what outcomes are possible" is achievable through understanding the context of the fictional situation without any knowledge of the rules. Someone who doesn't know the rules at all can certainly play by listening to the DM describe the environment and then saying what they want to do, knowing at a minimum that sometimes what they say they want to do will have an uncertain outcome which brings rules and dice into play at the DM's discretion.
We have a severe disconnect here. You cannot have reasonable expectations of the relative results of combat without a knowledge of what rules and assumptions will be used in resolving a combat. So those rules need to be understood and static prior to playing a game that allows for combat. Otherwise, you end up in situations where the player has a certain assumption of what he's capable of and how likely it is he can accomplish his goal, while in reality those things are not true. The same goes for social interactions, exploration, and all other aspects of the game. Description and optimism are not enough.
It depends on what you mean by "Rule Zero." If you say that means that the DM can change any rule at will, I'm definitely not referring to that. As I mentioned before when it was suggested I "ignore" rules, I am not changing them, only using them as needed which is in my view how rules are treated in an RPG - largely descriptively, not prescriptively.
Good grief. You pitch the concept that the rules serve the DM, and then argue that they never have before because the previous rule zero wasn't as explicitly stated as the current rule zero. You're all over the place, here. If you mean that 5e has a looser set of rules and encourages more adjudication by the DM vs older editions as a baseline assumption, sure, fine, trivial point. Doesn't change that older editions were just as open as the current one if the DM chose to make it so.
Again, players can make decisions based on what they understand of the fictional context of the situation. And I'm not suggesting changing rules "willy-nilly or on a whim" or indeed at all, nor am I saying to ignore them. In my view, they are tools to bring into play as needed. If they are not needed, they don't need to be brought into play. When they are needed is when there is uncertainty as to the outcome of a fictional action.
You say that you don't ignore rules, but then say that you only use them when you want to. And that's what it is, your wants, because Intimidating Presence has a clear entry point (the player uses it), a clear mechanic, and a clear exit point. You, however, argue that even if the entry point is used that you don't have to use any of the rest of it, and can, in fact, ignore the intended outcome entirely based on nothing more than your whim.
"Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action."
- Basic Rules, page 3
Lovely.
So for example if the barbarian tries to frighten an enemy with his or her menacing presence, I can decide that this was so easy that no saving throw is necessary - it just succeeds. If there is some circumstance that might make it challenging, such as that enemy girding its will against the attempt at intimidation, then a roll of a die is called for, in this case, a saving throw.
The uncertainty in Intimidating Presence is clearly stated. According to the rules, specific overrules general. In general, the quote you posted holds. In specific, Intimidating Presence requires a saving throw. Don't quote rules that support you while ignoring rules that don't. That's card stacking.
Please note I will no longer be responding to any statements that suggest I'm saying or inferring things that I've already stated are untrue, specifically, that I believe my way is "right," that others are having "badwrongfun," that anyone is a terrible person for not playing as I play, that they'd have more fun if only they saw the light, and so on. I've addressed these assertions repeatedly already and I refer anyone who wants to continue with such assertions to my previous posts on the matter. It is an unproductive line of discussion. In my view, it's focusing on tone to avoid hearing the content which I find regrettable.
People would stop saying them if you stopped using language that implies this is what you think. Things like 'you don't do RPGs right' and 'my way is easy, I don't understand how you can't see that.'
At the same time, I will endeavor to double check my posts for any language that could be taken as inflammatory in the above regard. If despite my efforts, something doesn't look right, please see my comment above.
"I might still be offensive, so consider this a blanket excuse that I probably didn't mean to be." I have high hopes.
If the DM decides on success, failure, or uncertainty (and ask for a roll), why would you want to ask to roll? Wouldn't you rather see if you can achieve outright success? I would never ask the DM to roll. I'd prefer not to leave my fate to the dice, if it can be avoided. It can't always be avoided, of course, due to the fictional circumstances, but I'm certainly not going to suggest there is uncertainty by asking to roll.
Now, if the DM asks for rolls for pretty much everything, then the smart play as I see it is to get really good at building characters so that I can maximize my chance of success at rolling dice, then try to limit what I do to only those things I'm good at doing. Of course, the DMG does suggest there are drawbacks to the DM asking for rolls for pretty much everything.
See, you've failed your above in the same post. You've said, "but if you don't do it my way, and instead use dice, why would I ever do anything buy min-max and avoid challenges I'm not built for?" This directly implies that anyone not using your method of avoid rolling can only result in munchkinism and broken tables. Fie, sir, on your false binary.
To answer your question, you roll because it's fun to do so, because RPGs aren't about winning, but telling a collective story and having fun, because you have faith that your DM isn't intentionally screwing you, or because you built a character to be good at things you aren't. This might surprise you, but I have a player at my table that isn't super awesome a social interactions. He'll even tell you this. But he likes the idea of face characters, and has played them on occasion. If we went by his actual roleplay only, and not his characters excellent social skills, more situations would turn out badly for him. So, instead, he'll tell me his goals for the conversation, roleplay his heart out, and then roll the dice. I'll take the dice roll to check for the success, even if he was insulting during the roleplay.
Something else I do at my table is take social skills into account for general roleplay. I have had a player that was, in general, a jerk. He was just about incapable of roleplaying without snark and insults. But, he was playing a Paladin with a high charisma and a high diplomacy, so even though he was usually a jerk at the table, when he interacted with NPCs I overlooked the majority of the player's jerkiness and had NPCs instead act as if he had been polite and pleasant. Conversely, I have an excellent roleplayer who made a character that dumped CHA, and even when he turned on his personal charm, NPCs generally ignored or reacted poorly to his overtures. This was without rolling, just at the interaction level. If they attempted something that was covered under their skills, like convincing a NPC or haggling or lying, they were asked for a roll at the end of their performance. Or at the beginning. I prefer to roll and then roleplay.
It would stand to reason that, in order to get a whiff of that door, your character would have to do something, right? And if that does indeed make sense to you - and I hope it does - does it not help to have the player describing what he or she wants to do? Does the below situation ever happen in your games?
Player: Does the door smell like a Christmas tree?
DM: You walk over to the door, get close, and take a big whiff. *rolls a Stealth check*
Player: Uh-oh.
DM: The door suddenly grows a toothy maw and sticky tendrils and attacks! Roll initiative - also, it has surprise.
Because I've definitely seen that sort of thing happen in games I've played in and observed. I've even seen this as a common response:
Player: I never said I walked over to the door...
At this point I would just roll my eyes at the player. But that would be highly unlikely to happen at my table, both because, if it did happen the way you state, the player would accept that his request involved action. But mostly because I don't do that.
That could definitely be an answer if I knew what the character was actually doing.
See, my problem with your approach is that you penalize characters with high perception skills. You give the same description to everyone, and then require that they take actions to discover new things. The information that a 6 wisdom, nose in a book wizard with no training in observation is going to be dramatically different than the information an 18 wisdom monk trained in perception with the Observant feat should get, yet both must take the same action to gather new information after you finish your description. The high perception player is disadvantaged for his choices.
Granted, I'm assuming that you allow for the high perception monk to gain more information when he takes his actions than the unaware wizard, but you require that both expend resource and time to gain that information. The monk should have had it beforehand. And that can be easily handled by allowing the monk to ask questions without taking actions.
Now, all that said, I will often answer questions that cannot be determined from the current location with a request for action. "What does the door smell like?" will almost always be answered with, "from 20' away? Not much. You're welcome to go over to it an take a whiff." "Okay, I go over to the door and smell it." "As you lean into the door, you're surprised to see that the door is leaning away from you. To your horror, you realize that it's not the whole door, but a mouth opening around your head as the door morphs into some kind of horrid, amorphous mass. The party is surprised, please roll initiative." All of that, of course, assumes that no one in the party had a high enough passive perception to not notice the mimic. In my current party, that's a hard sell (I have two passive perception 18-20 characters at 5th level. One's a cleric with a sentinel shield, and the other is a rogue built to scout with the observant feat).
So, I neatly avoid your false binary situation by not assuming actions on the part of the players, but yet still answering questions. It's like there may be a middle ground, or something.
