D&D 5E Players: Why Do You Want to Roll a d20?

[Charlaquin]

Oh, and just to follow up on this, I distinctly remember* things like the redhead (Matt's wife?) asking if she could do an acrobatics check to climb a tree. Can I quote you episode and time? No. But IIRC, he just corrected her and told her it was an athletics check to climb. I only remember it because I had a player at the time who wanted to use acrobatics for everything. Occasionally I'd allow him to parkour up (which is what she was thinking) but it was situational.

*AKA just another random thing stuck in my brain shoving aside whatever it was I was supposed to buy for my wife on my way home.

That doesn’t surprise me. I didn’t think Matt ran strictly with no player-initiated checks, I just know the general flow of the conversation in the show was player describes action > Matt asks for a check > Player makes check > Matt narrates the result, so it’s an easily accessible example of what such games look like in actual play. I mean, I narrate pretty differently than Matt does, and my players aren’t professional actors (well, one of them is, but the rest aren’t). But it’s a half-decent point of comparison.

 

[Oofta]

That doesn’t surprise me. I didn’t think Matt ran strictly with no player-initiated checks, I just know the general flow of the conversation in the show was player describes action > Matt asks for a check > Player makes check > Matt narrates the result, so it’s an easily accessible example of what such games look like in actual play. I mean, I narrate pretty differently than Matt does, and my players aren’t professional actors (well, one of them is, but the rest aren’t). But it’s a half-decent point of comparison.

The impression I get - perhaps incorrectly - is that you have a zero tolerance policy. I would say that my home game is run similar to the way Matt runs his.

Maybe people use shortcut phrases a bit more in my games because not everybody is into acting, but it's certainly not the only way communication is done.

 

[coolAlias]

The impression I get - perhaps incorrectly - is that you have a zero tolerance policy. I would say that my home game is run similar to the way Matt runs his.

I think this is the crux of the matter - I don't think anyone here has a zero tolerance policy (though I may be wrong...), but due to the limitations of the medium, loss of nuance, etc. it can easily be misunderstood to be that way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: watch games run by any two people from this discussion and you're likely to find more similarities than not.

 

[iserith]

I think this is the crux of the matter - I don't think anyone here has a zero tolerance policy (though I may be wrong...), but due to the limitations of the medium, loss of nuance, etc. it can easily be misunderstood to be that way.

With a pickup group in a one-shot, zero tolerance doesn't work. Most players will have been trained by previous DMs to ask to make ability checks. I make some effort to train them out of it, but have no expectation that it will happen over the course of one session.

In my Tables Rules document, I tell players not to ask questions that can instead be actions and not to ask to make ability checks. Sometimes they slip, and that's okay. I'll just ask them what they're trying to do and how they're trying to do it. Because I can't adjudicate fairly (as I see it) without that information. Not without making assumptions about or establishing for the player what the character is doing which I want to avoid.

With my regulars, I am less forgiving because they know better. A question or ask to make an ability check is going to get them made fun of. But then, I have also explained to them - as I have in my original post - why it's just not a good idea at all to want to roll. And they've internalized it so it's not really an issue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: watch games run by any two people from this discussion and you're likely to find more similarities than not.

In many ways, yes. But some things would be glaringly different. I have a good laugh with some regular players who jump into one-shots with other groups and they complain like crazy in Discord about the number of questions the pickup group is asking instead of actually doing stuff. It's like once it's pointed out, you can't unsee it.

 

[Campbell]

So my response when a player says they want to roll an Insight check is something like "Cool. What does that look like?". Like this is all part of a conversation that plays out at the table. There is no shame involved. I just like want to know more.

 

[Oofta]

So my response when a player says they want to roll an Insight check is something like "Cool. What does that look like?". Like this is all part of a conversation that plays out at the table. There is no shame involved. I just like want to know more.

I almost want to make time to play an online game with you just so I could flash this image up on the screen when you ask me that:

 

[coolAlias]

In many ways, yes. But some things would be glaringly different. I have a good laugh with some regular players who jump into one-shots with other groups and they complain like crazy in Discord about the number of questions the pickup group is asking instead of actually doing stuff. It's like once it's pointed out, you can't unsee it.

I stand corrected, then.

Personally, I lean more toward the "I'd prefer you describe (succinctly) what you're doing but I'll only ask for clarification if the context is unclear" style, but then I only play with close friends and family and we tend to switch up who DMs. None of us DM or play frequently enough to really get set in any particular style other than what I'd describe as "lenient."

 

[iserith]

I stand corrected, then.

Personally, I lean more toward the "I'd prefer you describe (succinctly) what you're doing but I'll only ask for clarification if the context is unclear" style, but then I only play with close friends and family and we tend to switch up who DMs. None of us DM or play frequently enough to really get set in any particular style other than what I'd describe as "lenient."

Yeah, what I'm really talking about is player questions. Can I do THIS? Can I do THAT? Do I know anything about SUBJECT? Do I see any THINGS? My response to that is a deep sigh, some mutterings of "Serenity Now...," and asking what it is they're DOING to get answers to these questions.

If I as DM am asking questions, it's because I didn't understand what the player wanted to do. That can happen, especially after the fourth Jameson, but should also be minimal in my opinion.

 

[Charlaquin]

The impression I get - perhaps incorrectly - is that you have a zero tolerance policy. I would say that my home game is run similar to the way Matt runs his.

Zero tolerance is a bit extreme. I don’t, like, get mad at players for asking for a check. I don’t admonish them or kick them out. I ask for clarification. Like, I’ve seen you say several times that to you what a PC is doing and why when the player asks for a check is obvious to you 99% of the time, and the 1% of the time that it’s not, you ask for clarification. If it helps, don’t think of what I do as not tolerating requests for checks, but as needing clarification 99% of the time.

Maybe people use shortcut phrases a bit more in my games because not everybody is into acting, but it's certainly not the only way communication is done.

It’s not a matter of shortcut phrases. I cannot glean the information I need to resolve an action from a skill name alone.

 

[Hussar]

PC is talking to npc. Player rolls an insight check without the dm asking for one.

Are you seriously telling me you need clarification? “What does insight look like?” Howdahell should I know?