But, you are so quick to correct my misunderstandings. I'm rather baffled why this gets left on the table.
I don't correct people on their own approaches because I operate on the assumption that they know their own approaches better than I do for reasons that I hope are obvious. I do correct erroneous assertions about
my approaches and answer questions you post about it on the assumption of good faith on your part that you're interested in learning more.
Charlaquin and Maxperson are doing their own thing at their own tables. In some ways, it's similar to what I do. I find it helps if you treat people as individuals and don't lump them into groups that you treat as if each member of that group is the same.
SERIOUSLY?!?!?!
"I make a History Check" is off limits, but this is fine? Good grief.
This is why this discussion is so frustrating. It's like punching smoke. If "I make a history check" is not an action", then how the heck is THIS an action? And you wonder why the criticism of magic wording gets trotted out so often. "Oh, Mr. DM, I didn't actually SAY history check, so, I guess it's ok?"
An ability check is not an action. This appears to be what you do not understand as has been mentioned several times in this thread and dozens of times in others. An ability check is a mechanic used to resolve an action that the player has described which has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. "I make a History check" doesn't tell me anything about what the character is doing, so I have nothing to adjudicate. And that leaves aside the fact that only the DM may call for ability checks in the first place.
I would add that your own approach is not immune from claims that you use "magic words." If anything, it's
more applicable since "I make a History check" is apparently a mystical symbol for an action in your game world that only those inducted into the inner mysteries at your table knows but will not speak aloud lest they make it real.
Contrast that to my approach where many approaches to the same goal might be established instead of just one set of "magic words" that permit you to roll a die. You just say what you want to do and maybe you roll and maybe you don't. Hopefully, in my opinion, you don't have to because you got automatic success.
So perhaps we can put to bed any notions of "magic words" going forward, eh?
Yeah. This is just going around in circles. You've created this mythical play style that actually isn't anything new or original, just wrapped it up in some flowery language in the pretense that it is something different. Complete and utter smoke and mirrors trying to dress up "role playing".
I have never claimed that I've created anything new here. I'm just going by my reading of the rules and have said so. By definition that means I've not come up with anything new.
I would add that roleplaying is just playing a role, the player determining what the character does, thinks, and says. So we're
all roleplaying, even if some of us are roleplaying
differently. My table uses a mix of active and descriptive roleplaying as laid out in the PHB.
