Okay, but why keep repeating it?
Man, I kind of feel like a grump with how much humor and fun snuck into these last few pages, but I don't like ignoring people's responses.
Say, Pot, have you met my friend, Kettle?
Right, my confusion stems from the fact that considering the context, asking to roll will tell me what actions a player intends to take 80% or more of the time.
I know. You've said. You can stop repeating it. I know.
I think you two would get along, you have so much in common.
Okay this? This is a reasonable concern.
And, generally, if a specific thing like touching would make a difference, I ask the player "Okay, do you touch it or are you keeping your distance". And I don't always do it for bad things, sometimes it is for benefits, but as long as I am careful I can mitigate that risk.
Sure, that’s one way one might address that concern. Personally, I’d say that “gives away the game,” much more than telling players the DC. If it works for you, have at it, but I prefer my way of doing it.
And, if a player wants to give me more detailed information of what they are doing, I'll accept that. I'm fine with it, I just do not demand that they never say "I roll perception" and I don't chastise or try to lead them out of it if they do. There is enough of an understanding of the fiction between myself and the player to move forward, and I'm not worried about offending them.
I don’t demand that players never say they roll Perception or chastise them for doing so. I ask that they tell me what they want to accomplish and how their character goes about it. They can be as specific and detailed as they like, or as simple and general as they like, so long as they provide me with the two things I need to adequately adjudicate their action without making assumptions or dictating what their character does - namely, a goal and an approach. Saying “I roll Perception” doesn’t provide me with that. Maybe it is enough for you to be comfortable adjudicating an action. Bully for you.
Time comes to mind. If you end up always getting three to four actions to resolve a single challenge, you are very likely to end up bloating up obstacles. Especially if you are building uncertainty into your players minds.
I know you’re not going to believe me when I say this, but it does not take much time at all in my games. It helps that no time is wasted on unnecessary dice rolls. I also don’t build uncertainty - on the contrary, I run the game the way I do to build
certainty in my players’ minds, so that they can feel confident in making informed decisions. I have an example a while back of a player who was really concerned about the whole player skill vs character skill thing, until we had a talk about it, she agreed to give it a try, and she loves it. She is the most confident and creative player in my current group when it comes to describing actions.
First off, no hard feelings, this thread has stretched long and it is easy to lump and confuse things.
As to why I don't give out DCs... I like to keep the mystery I suppose. Sometimes the person you are talking to is more dangerous than they appear, and intimidating them is a DC 25, not a DC 10. But hearing that intimidating the foppish bard you found tied up in the woods is a DC 25 gives away the game of slowly revealing who it really is.
That isn't to say I don't give them any idea of the challenge. A rogue looking to pick a lock is going to be able to get a decent sense of how hard a lock it is, but I don't feel compelled to tell them an exact number, or tell them about the hidden glyph that might go off if they fail.
Also, as a player, I'm fine just knowing "easy, medium, hard, really hard" because knowing the exact number turns on my math brain. Every number on a d20 is 5%, mod is X, so I need DC-X which is Y%. It turns my risky maneuver into a math equation to be solved, and I don't want that when I'm doing skill checks.
I get where you’re coming from. I used to feel the same way. Since embracing “the middle path,” I’ve realized that I was worrying too much about giving things away, when in reality, the game works much better (for me, YMMV) when I give the players information. There’s this great Alfred Hitchcock speech where he talks about the importance of giving the audience information in order to build suspense, and I think it applies to D&D as well as filmmaking.
To be fair, I think "easy, medium, hard, very hard" can work just as well, since those terms refer to specific DCs. As long as the players know that you’re using those terms that way.
Because it can be interesting. It forces us to come up with a why, and sometimes I just don't let them try. I say "no", but when I'm uncertain... the dice get rolled. That's their job.
Whatever works for you. I’m not here to tell you your way of doing things is wrong.
I agree with you.
But I don't like absolutes, and for example, a 20 rogue saying they use stroke of luck, I'm probably not going to bother actually rolling the die, but I would still count that as a "skill check"
Well you’re going to get a lot of pushback on that, because the term skill check has a specific meaning within the rules, and you’re using it to mean something else.
A difference seems to be that you think this thread about skills is somehow a thread about "Actions players can take". Those are different types of discussions, we didn't start this thread with "What are all the ways you can tell an NPC is lying" it started with "If an NPC is telling the truth, and Insight is rolled, what DC is it to know they are telling the truth"
A fundamentally flawed premise, because we do not all agree that Insight should be rolled if an NPC is telling the truth.
It was an absurd example, specifically called out to be an absurd example by the poster.
But, poor style is still poor style, and it bugged me. So I addressed the style concern. I have never and will never say that a payer who said all those things would have to roll a die and have any potential for failure. I have repeatedly said they would have automatically succeeded.
Then your message is extremely unclear. You have been arguing for an alternative ruling of the result, which is implicitly arguing in favor of the call to resolve the action by way of a dice roll.
But saying "No, you fail, take damage" is really poor technique. And I reserve the right to critique style when an example is called out to be absurd and not meant to be taken as a serious argument.
Again, it’s a super weird hill to die on, given that “no, you fail, take damage” was arguably the least contentious part of the example. Sure, the hypothetical DM shouldn’t have said “no, you fail, take damage.” But the greater issue with that ruling is in allowing the possibility of failure in the first place. If you want to argue that DMs should be specific about why actions fail in terms of the narrative, instead of just saying they fail, fine, but the example under discussion is a terrible one to reference to make that point.
