Missing Rules

[iserith]

I don't require players to speak using a narrowly prescribed phraseology.

Do you imagine that I do? "Don't ask to make an ability check because that's not your role and not even a very good strategy" leaves open an entire world of possibilities to describe one's approach to a goal. How is that narrow by any reasonable definition? How are those "code words," to use another word you brought up earlier?

If someone says "I want to do an investigation check" I know what they're doing is looking closely and trying to get a better understanding.

You assume what they are doing. And you may be right. But perhaps not always. And if you're establishing what the character is doing, you're stepping outside of the DM's role in the game. (Whether or not you care if you do is a separate matter.)

I don't understand why you're so stuck on a couple of sentences in the DMG. People have different ways of expressing what they want their character to do.

I'm not "stuck" on anything. I've read the rules for D&D 5e. I play by the rules as I understand them. If I'm playing D&D 4e, I play by those rules which includes player asking to make ability checks. And this is more than "a couple of sentences in the DMG." It's in the Basic Rules and the DMG in multiple sections specifically and then other rules are based on those underlying assumptions.

 

[AlViking]

It’s not about specific phrasing, it’s about giving the DM enough information to make a judgment call about the results. Just telling me “I want to do an investigation check” doesn’t tell me what you are trying to learn or how you are going about trying to learn it, which makes it impossible not only to determine if you need to make a check in the first place, but also what the difficulty of a check might be of one is necessary. “I make an Athletics check to jump further than I normally can” actually does give me enough information. Your goal is to cover more ground than you can normally jump, and your method is by jumping. From that description of what your character is doing, it is my job as DM to determine what the results are, and skill checks are a tool to help me make that determine in the case of an uncertain outcome. Personally, I would say that your approach, “jump” does not have a reasonable chance of success at achieving your goal, “cover more ground than I can by jumping,” so I would tell you no roll is necessary. You would fail. But I would also say that and give you the opportunity to try something else, rather than skipping straight to narrating the failure, just as I would provide you with an opportunity to change your mind after I told you the DC if I felt a check was necessary.


I think the fundamental difference in our approaches is not about give and take or lack thereof, but about the role of skills. To you, Skills are a player tool for interfacing with the game world. To me, Skills are a DM tool for determining the outcomes of actions that are not otherwise clear.

The vast majority of times saying "I make an investigation check" is crystal clear. The one time in a hundred it's not, I'll just ask them for clarification.

You aren't boss of me and don't get to decide what skill checks mean for me.

In many cases D&D is about PCs overcoming obstacles and resolving issues. Whether that obstacle is a goblin or a chasm doesn't really matter. If the PC wants to overcome the obstacle of determining what the symbols on the door mean by looking at them, making an investigation check may be one way of overcoming the obstacle. If it's not something I'd allow I'll let them know.

Speaking in skills is just a shortcut in many cases. Instead of saying "I press my ear against the door and try to eavesdrop on the conversation" they say "I make a perception check to listen in". Six of one, half dozen of the other.

But this is all just a repeat. You do you, I'll do me, we agree to disagree.

 

[AlViking]

Do you imagine that I do? "Don't ask to make an ability check because that's not your role and not even a very good strategy" leaves open an entire world of possibilities to describe one's approach to a goal. How is that narrow by any reasonable definition? How are those "code words," to use another word you brought up earlier?



You assume what they are doing. And you may be right. But perhaps not always. And if you're establishing what the character is doing, you're stepping outside of the DM's role in the game. (Whether or not you care if you do is a separate matter.)



I'm not "stuck" on anything. I've read the rules for D&D 5e. I play by the rules as I understand them. If I'm playing D&D 4e, I play by those rules which includes player asking to make ability checks. And this is more than "a couple of sentences in the DMG." It's in the Basic Rules and the DMG in multiple sections specifically and then other rules are based on those underlying assumptions.

I'm also running the game as best I can based on my understanding of the rules of this edition as well. I mean no offense, we just run the game differently or at least express how we run the game differently.

We disagree, and no matter how vociferously you state your point of view I doubt either one of us is going to change their minds. I can't think of anything else to add.

 

[iserith]

I'm also running the game as best I can based on my understanding of the rules of this edition as well. I mean no offense, we just run the game differently or at least express how we run the game differently.

We disagree, and no matter how vociferously you state your point of view I doubt either one of us is going to change their minds. I can't think of anything else to add.

It's never my goal to convince people who disagree with me to change their mind. It's hard to fathom an approach that would be successful on the internet and I don't have the benefit your players have to just say "I make a Persuasion check" and have that be good enough.

I engage to make my own arguments sharper or clearer and also for the benefit of people who are reading the discussion. But try to convince you to change your mind? Nah.

 

[AlViking]

It's never my goal to convince people who disagree with me to change their mind. It's hard to fathom an approach that would be successful on the internet and I don't have the benefit your players have to just say "I make a Persuasion check" and have that be good enough.

I engage to make my own arguments sharper or clearer and also for the benefit of people who are reading the discussion. But try to convince you to change your mind? Nah.

It would be extremely rare that I would allow someone to say "I make a persuasion check".

Most times if they say that I'd launch into an RP session and/or ask them what they are saying depending on the player and the scene.

But every once in a while? Yeah, "I persuade the bouncer to let us in to the party" may work. Some people that are not very good with words like to play charismatic characters so I adjust my play style to maximize the fun for all.

 

[iserith]

It would be extremely rare that I would allow someone to say "I make a persuasion check".

Most times if they say that I'd launch into an RP session and/or ask them what they are saying depending on the player and the scene.

But every once in a while? Yeah, "I persuade the bouncer to let us in to the party" may work. Some people that are not very good with words like to play charismatic characters so I adjust my play style to maximize the fun for all.

"I try to persuade the bouncer to let us in the party (goal) by making a cordial request (approach)."

That's good enough for me.

 

[AlViking]

"I try to persuade the bouncer to let us in the party (goal) by making a cordial request (approach)."

That's good enough for me.

We're close. I just allow my players to use fewer words: "I use persuasion to convince the bouncer to let us in."

Won't work all the time of course. But depending on the player even a fumbling "We explain to the king what we found" with a couple of people chiming in would also work.

I'd rather do this kind of stuff in character and I often encourage it with inspiration, but I don't require it.

 

[Satyrn]

How about "I try to persuade the bouncer to let us in the party by handing him a fiver?"

 

[iserith]

We're close. I just allow my players to use fewer words: "I use persuasion to convince the bouncer to let us in."

Won't work all the time of course. But depending on the player even a fumbling "We explain to the king what we found" with a couple of people chiming in would also work.

I'd rather do this kind of stuff in character and I often encourage it with inspiration, but I don't require it.

I have no particular preference as to descriptive or active roleplaying. The rules suggest both work and any given game is a mix of the two and that has been my experience. I just need to be able to discern a goal and approach without assuming or establishing what the character is doing so I can perform my role as DM.

I don't award Inspiration. The players in my games claim it. It works exceedingly well.

 

[Reynard]

We're close. I just allow my players to use fewer words: "I use persuasion to convince the bouncer to let us in."

Won't work all the time of course. But depending on the player even a fumbling "We explain to the king what we found" with a couple of people chiming in would also work.

I'd rather do this kind of stuff in character and I often encourage it with inspiration, but I don't require it.

I'm with AIViking here, with the addition that if a player has a clear idea of what mechanics they want to use to accomplish their goal I prefer them to just tell me. I don't dissuade the in character interaction but I still want to know what they, as player, are trying to do with the system. It's much easier to adjudicate that way. I don't like playing guessing games. It results in miscommunication and potentially hard feelings of things go badly because I thought the player was trying to Bluff when he was actually trying to Intimidate or whatever. So if the player comes out with, " I intimidate the guard," versus "I puff up and make myself look tougher than I am" I can call for the right rolls and tactics. It isn't my job to tell the player how to use their character.