Missing Rules

[Xetheral]

Me, I treat each edition of D&D as separate and distinct. I try to leave my assumptions at the door and amend my approach as a player and DM to best fit the version I'm playing. To do otherwise seems strange to me. They're different games, not software upgrades of the same game.

Interestingly, software upgrades are exactly how I see each version of D&D. I think of game systems as tools that are available to DMs to help facilitate running the game at their table, just like word processing software helps facilitate composition. (A programming language or environment might be an even better analogy than word processoring software.)

In contrast to what you wrote above, the type of game I want to play and my style of DMing determines my choice of game system to a much greater extent than vice versa. Accordingly, my DMing style and the "basic conversation" at my table hasn't changed much between editions, and probably doesn't exactly match the high-level "how to play" overview of any of them. I already know how I want to play at my table, and I'm not planning to change that just because the phrasing in the book changed.

 

[AlViking]

See, at my table, the players are trying to avoid rolling. So asking them what check they're trying to roll might get you a response like "I don't want to roll if I don't have to." They're aiming for automatic success. Trying to roll a d20 is not a very good strategy for achieving goals. Why put your hands in the fate of a random number generator if you can sometimes avoid it?

Further, if you're not sure what a player's goal and approach is, it's easy enough to just say "I have an idea of what you're doing, but I'm not sure what you hope to achieve. Can you explain?" Or "I see what you're trying to do, but I'm not sure how you hope to accomplish that exactly." Over time, players get better at making clear their goal and approach.

As for which ability check is called for, all the DM need do is filter any task with an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence of failure into six ability checks and settle on a DC. The player can then ask if a proficiency applies (remember that section of the DMG you referenced?) given his or her stated approach to achieving the goal.

It's great that it works for you and your group. I have some players whose idea of staying in character is not talking too much about the football game while we're playing. I also judge AL, so while I encourage a more RP-centric style I never expect it.

 

[BookBarbarian]

That's a long way to get to the same place with no perceivable benefit and the potential for negative consequences in the form of miscommunication. I am happier, and my players are too, letting them pilot their own characters through the world I present to them.

Some time ago I switched over to preferring my player's describe what their characters are doing, rather than asking to make a check.

I found it actually made it easier to "let them pilot their own characters through the world I present to them." because I could listen to what they were describing and use that to influence the check by granting situation Advantage, lowering the DC, or even having Success without a roll.

I saw my players start to player their characters more than their character sheets.

This was a benefit to my game, but of course that's just my game.

 

[iserith]

That's a long way to get to the same place with no perceivable benefit and the potential for negative consequences in the form of miscommunication. I am happier, and my players are too, letting them pilot their own characters through the world I present to them.

I have to wonder what you're actually hearing me say if that's the sort of conclusion you reach based on what I'm telling you.

 

[AlViking]

Some time ago I switched over to preferring my player's describe what their characters are doing, rather than asking to make a check.

I found it actually made it easier to "let them pilot their own characters through the world I present to them." because I could listen to what they were describing and use that to influence the check by granting situation Advantage, lowering the DC, or even having Success without a roll.

I saw my players start to player their characters more than their character sheets.

This was a benefit to my game, but of course that's just my game.

It's cool to encourage it, but I have some players who just don't play that way. I've come to accept that people don't need to play in my preferred style to be fun to game with.

 

[BookBarbarian]

It's cool to encourage it, but I have some players who just don't play that way.

Very true.

I've come to accept that people don't need to play in my preferred style to be fun to game with.

Also true, but diverging play styles can indeed be a problem.

A good session 0 can help with a lot of this.

 

[iserith]

Interestingly, software upgrades are exactly how I see each version of D&D. I think of game systems as tools that are available to DMs to help facilitate running the game at their table, just like word processing software helps facilitate composition. (A programming language or environment might be an even better analogy than word processoring software.)

In contrast to what you wrote above, the type of game I want to play and my style of DMing determines my choice of game system to a much greater extent than vice versa. Accordingly, my DMing style and the "basic conversation" at my table hasn't changed much between editions, and probably doesn't exactly match the high-level "how to play" overview of any of them. I already know how I want to play at my table, and I'm not planning to change that just because the phrasing in the book changed.

Yep, a lot of people do that in my experience. It's easy to spot in play.

 

[AlViking]

Very true.



Also true, but diverging play styles can indeed be a problem.

A good session 0 can help with a lot of this.

I agree, but (you knew there was a but coming, didn't you?) short of kicking my friend out of the game I don't see it happening.

That and for AL games, there's only so much you can do. If I didn't want to meet new people and get out of the house now and then I may not play AL because it does lack depth at times. Especially true because our game store is quite noisy. Which I guess is not all bad; it's noisy because they're busy.

 

[iserith]

It's great that it works for you and your group. I have some players whose idea of staying in character is not talking too much about the football game while we're playing. I also judge AL, so while I encourage a more RP-centric style I never expect it.

I don't have any particular preference for how "in-character" a player is at the table, depending on your definition of that word. I just need a goal and an approach which can be communicated through active or descriptive roleplaying.

 

[Reynard]

I have to wonder what you're actually hearing me say if that's the sort of conclusion you reach based on what I'm telling you.

It's possible I am misunderstanding you, but what I think you are saying is that you would prefer to have a player say, "My character saunters up to the guard, flexes a little and politely suggests it's time to take a coffee break," and YOU decide (assuming there is going to be a roll involved) whether that is a Charisma check and whether Bluff or Intimidate applies. Do I have that right?

EDIT: To add, perhaps I am conflating [MENTION=6779196]Charlaquin[/MENTION] and your points of view on this?