Earlier examples from @
Charlaquin regarding his player would cause me, as a player to do nothing but grind my teeth.
That’s fine. I’m open to the possibility that not everyone’s preferred play style will mesh with mine. If you don’t like the way I run the game, no one will force you to play at my table.
Also, it’d be “regarding her player.” No big deal, but just so we’re clear.
You don't ask me to describe my actions before I attack and I can certainly roll an attack roll without your permission, nor do you ask me to describe my actions before casting a spell.
I don’t ask you to describe your search for traps either. I ask you to state a goal and an approach. An attack in combat has that built in - your goal is to kill your target, and your approach is to use your weapon. That much is pretty easy and uncontroversial to infer. However, in order to properly adjudicate the action, I do need you to tell me what target you are attacking and with what weapon. Likewise, it is pretty easy and uncontrovetsial to infer that when you say “I check for traps,” your goal is to discern whether or not trap are present. It is not so easy or uncontroversial to infer what you are doing to make that determination. Are you just looking with your eyes? Are you touching anything? Are you using your hands or a tool? I don’t need specific details, but I do need to know generally where you are searching and how you are searching it, just like I don’t need to know specific details of your attack, but I do need to know generally what you are attacking and with what weapon or spell.
So, what's wrong with, "I'm trained in investigation - I check for traps"?
Knowing that you are trained in investigation does not help me understand what your character is doing to investigate, which I need to know in order to determine the results. Just as knowing that you are proficient with martial weapons doesn’t help me know what weapon you are attacking with.
The idea that somehow that makes me an "entitled" player is something I strongly object to.
I’m pretty sure that’s not what Bawylie was suggesting by saying “players are not entitled to a roll.” That sounds to me like the literal meaning of the word “entitled.” That is to say, I think he was saying “the rules don’t grant you the authority to decide when the success of your own character’s action should be determined by way of a dice roll,” not “you are an entitled person if you want to roll dice.”
And, as a DM, I have zero interest in gate keeping player skill checks. They can roll any time they want. Frankly I prefer it that way.
No one is gatekeeping skill checks. We’re just saying that it is the DM’s role to decide when the result of a character’s action requires a dice roll to determine its success or failure, nor the player’s. If you prefer to allow your players to decide that the results of their actions will be determined by way of a skill check whenever they want to, that’s fine. You do you.
To me the fact that @
Oofta's very polite requests for why doing it your way helps the game were completely stonewalled and people immediately got defensive demonstrates that perhaps folks are a bit more controlling while sitting in the DM's chair than they think they are.
Who stonewalled Oofta? It looked to me like their respectful questions received respectful answers. After giving my own answer, I requested that we not let this thread devolve into another 100+ page argument about our preferred resolution methods, because I foresaw a post like yours coming soon.
No one is saying you’re DMing wrong if you let your players make checks whenever they want. What’s it to you that some of us don’t do that? You run your games the way you like, and I’ll run my games the way I like.