D&D 5E Are there actions not covered under a skill?

[Reynard]

The offensive thing here is the continued characterization of @Charlaquin's play (and mine) as 'how well do I know the way the DM thinks." It's not that at all. I don't have a solution that the players are hoping to guess. If they have a reasonable approach, that's all that matters -- I'm going to adapt.

For instance, I'm not going to bother considering if goblins are more susceptible to intimidation than persuasion (or that persuasion will have a negative reaction) because that's actually moving into "how well do I know the way the DM thinks." Instead, I'm going to present the situation and then go with what's presented by the player in their approach -- if they have a reasonable attempt to persuade, then that's what gets a roll. If they have a reasonable attempt to intimidate, that's what gets a roll. Or just works. At no point do I have a prepared solution I'm going to make my players guess. Goblins are more or less susceptible to intimidate because I don't care -- I only care what my players have told me they do and I adjudicate that, with as little pre-judgement as possible.

It isn't "DM may I" if the PCs are engaging with a thing that is true in the fiction. If "Goblins are more susceptible to intimidation" is true, then it is always true and it likely comes out in all kinds of ways, not just a bonus/penalty to social interactions. It wouldn't be a fact hidden from the players or their characters (although if this was their first interaction with goblins, they might not know that they don't know it).

I run the game much the same way you describe, except that I will likely have a thing in mind/in my notes like "this NPCs loves elves and so an elf talking to them will get advantage." That's a fact about that particular NPCs no different than "it's locked" is a fact about a particular door. Of course it is going to impact play, and of course the players may or may not be aware of it and/or engage with it during play.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I can point to CR and say "it's kind of like that with 1/2 the skill rolls" to give you an idea what my games are like. Can you give me concrete real world examples? Because this has nothing to do with the DM having a preplanned "solution" or approach.

Never watched CR, and I don't think that I should have to ingest that many hours of video to grasp your playstyle.

In my games the player can say "I try persuasion on the NPC". If that's not clear I'll ask for details. It could be "I compliment them on their stunning sense of style and presence" so I'll know they're trying persuasion. I may or may not ask for a roll.

Sure, and you do you, that's fine. "I try persuasion on the NPC," in my game, is not acceptable. Why are your trying persuasion -- what do you want to accomplish? Are you persuading them to give you a hug, or access to the king so you can assassinate them? What does "persuasion" mean? What are you leveraging to persuade them? I'm not going to guess.

I'm okay with whatever my players are comfortable with. I prefer the latter but will also go along with the former.

When it comes to reading the DM someone who knows me well can probably guess better whether they're dealing with a cowardly goblin or a stick-in-the-mud bureaucrat so if I think there's doubt I may ask my players for an insight check. That and just because the player can think of the right words to convince the bureaucrat to give them the document they seek doesn't mean that the PC is going to communicate it as effectively, or vice versa. Approach does matter of course and can result in advantage/disadvantage on the roll or automatic success/failure.

If your players have a doubt, you'll ask them for an insight check, because you 1) can always recognize when you players have a misconception and 2) think the proper way to fix you not being clear is using an in-game tool?

But, this elides the fact that you have a prejudged and preferred method for dealing with specific NPCs, meaning that your players will have a better chance of success by reading you, the GM. If they're confused, or misread the situation, you might call for an insight check to correct this, but then we're at 2 different checks to do the one thing and you've completely lost the efficiency you've claimed. And, you're still much closer to requiring reading the GM's mind than I am.

I find it very weird to have my method be referred to as guessing the DM's mind when you provide a concrete example of such in your play.

I don't see why it's controversial to believe that my wife is more likely to know how to phrase things in a manner that is going to convince me than someone who met me an hour ago as a new player to the table or even to the game. As a person I am biased, it's part of being human. There are times I would rather rely on a neutral icosahedron combined with the numbers on a character sheet as arbiter.

I cannot help your lack of trust. I can be offended that you accuse me of being untrustworthy. And, I can point out that you're made a case that a goblin will be more influenced by intimidation than persuasion, so you're already contradicted your own statement here as you, as GM, would treat these cases differently and not be just using a neutral die and numbers on the character sheet as arbiter. Please, pick a line of argument and stick to it rather than selecting the goal posts depending on how you want to dismiss other's forms of play as less fair than yours.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It isn't "DM may I" if the PCs are engaging with a thing that is true in the fiction. If "Goblins are more susceptible to intimidation" is true, then it is always true and it likely comes out in all kinds of ways, not just a bonus/penalty to social interactions. It wouldn't be a fact hidden from the players or their characters (although if this was their first interaction with goblins, they might not know that they don't know it).

So, it would be hidden, except when it isn't. I don't even get to that point.

I run the game much the same way you describe, except that I will likely have a thing in mind/in my notes like "this NPCs loves elves and so an elf talking to them will get advantage." That's a fact about that particular NPCs no different than "it's locked" is a fact about a particular door. Of course it is going to impact play, and of course the players may or may not be aware of it and/or engage with it during play.

That's fine, but I rather doubt you run the game as I do if you allow players to ask for skill checks. I get that you don't see much of a difference, but I used to run with players asking for skill checks, just like I did in 3e, but I've changed how I run, and I can tell you that it's not a small or minor difference. It makes a huge difference in how the game plays. My players feel like they have more input and control over what happens than they did before -- not because they guess what I want, but because I take what they want and use that to adjudicate. My workload is much less with this method because I'm relying on the players to provide the approach and goal and just have to use the very simple tools provided to adjudicate that, rather than having to come up with most of that on my own because I've allowed "I try to persuade the NPC."

 

[Charlaquin]

Given that there is no one right way, I would say that Matt asks for more rolls than I do. But I have never seen a podcast that takes it to the level you and iserith seem to. If there is what you would consider an example of your style I'd be curious.

I’m not aware of any podcasts or streams run in this way, but it’d be something to look out for. I know iserith did an actual play with the intent of teaching his techniques way back during either the late stages of the 5e playtest or the early days after its release, though I think that was in text? And I imagine he would probably not be entirely satisfied these days with the way he ran it back then. Also I doubt it exists anymore since the WotC forums went down. I also remember during the playtest the developers did a series, on YouTube I think, of them playing through a modified version of some famous module or another with the playtest rules. I don’t recall if the way Mearls DMed that was consistent with what I view as the style 5e suggests or not, but I think either way it would be very enlightening to go back and watch to see how the folks who were making the game actually handled it at the time. I dunno, but if I ever do find a game that resembles my preferred style I’ll gladly share a link.

To me it's why the intimidation would be better than persuasion that matters. So let's take the goblin example. This is a creature that's used to being on the bottom of the totem pole. Their entire life they've been bullied and pushed around so they've come to expect being bullied. But persuasion? That's kind of foreign to the goblin and would make him suspicious.

There are plenty of examples where it would work the other way. Intimidating a bureaucrat would just make them dig in their heels while persuasion could convince them to let things slide just this once.

As I said in my response to @prabe, I feel like painting all approaches that might fall under the umbrella of “intimidation” doesn’t leave enough room for nuance. Threatening to kill the goblin if he doesn’t talk and threatening to tickle him if he doesn’t could both reasonably be described as intimidation, but I don’t see them both having the same likelihood of success. Likewise, offering to protect him from his leader if he rats her out and asking pretty please with a cherry on top could both be considered persuasion but one seems much more likely to be effective. Deciding that Intimidation is going to be easier that Persuasion without knowing how the character is attempting to intimidate or persuade the goblin just doesn’t make sense to me. Unless of course you’re leaving the specifics of how the player does it undefined until after the roll has been made, and using the result to inform your narration of what happens. That’s the method I tend to associate with 3e, and it works perfectly well, it just isn’t what I prefer.

When it comes to making rolls I'll try to make it clear if the players are dealing with a cowardly goblin who doesn't want trouble and when they're dealing with the bureaucrat, but I'm not a professional actor and as far as I know my player is on the autism spectrum while their PC has a 20 wisdom and training in insight. On the other hand it could be someone who knows me inside and out but their PC has an 8 wisdom.

I don't want to play "how well do I know the way the DM thinks" on either side of the screen.

Yeah, I get that concern. I just don’t think it’s as big a problem as people often worry it is. One of my regular players is in fact autistic, one has tics that make most social interaction difficult, and one has serious social anxiety, (and one is a professional actor!) but they’re all able to follow my narration and describe goals and approaches with a reasonable degree of specificity. As we are all playing in good faith, there is no need for games of trying to guess how the DM thinks, simply thinking about the world as real and functioning under consistent logic, and acting according to that understanding is perfectly sufficient.

But again ... I don't know what your games are actually like. Mine are kind-of-sort-of like Critical Role with probably 1/2 the skill related dice rolls (or maybe less depending). Oh, and of course, as was established on another thread after checking my driver's license I am not Matt Mercer.

Despite all the hand-wringing about Matt Mercer effects and what not, I actually think critical role is a pretty decent example of a fairly typical, if especially well-acted 5e game looks like. At least in terms of technique. Matt gets pretty descriptive, and the players get way into their characters, but fundamentally the process is pretty much the same as what I see at most 5e tables. And it’s ironically the process I associate with 3e and 4e. I don’t think most 5e players are familiar with the style that my interpretation of the 5e rules has lead me to, or even conceive of it as an option, which is why it can be so difficult to express and these threads always get so long. And I think that’s too bad, because it’s a fun way to play. It probably wouldn’t be for everyone, but I find that a lot of commonly-expressed problems DMs have with the 5e system cease to be problems under it.

It would be interesting to have a thread where we just presented without judgement the same scenarios and how they would play out in our games. However in the past that has been seen as a "trap" for some reason. That may have been iserith ... but he has me on ignore.

We could try. The thing is, I usually find these examples too lacking in context to give adequate answers. I try my best, but a lot of unspoken assumptions always go into such examples, and one usually has to make a lot of other assumptions to answer, so we end up representing these nebulous versions of what we do that don’t really accurately reflect our play experiences, and then we end up picking each others’ examples apart and nobody walks away with any better an understanding of the others’ positions. I’m willing to give it another try, but I don’t think it’s likely to be very useful to anyone.

 

[Charlaquin]

Those aren't subtle differences. They are non existent differences. I don't think what you are describing has anything to do with 3E vs 5E, but rather is a function of different DMing styles. The procedure is exactly the same, which you display here yourself. Now, the mechanics are different in many cases. 3.x games employed concrete DCs for specific actions in many cases, for example, and 5E asks the DM to do a lot more on the fly setting of DCs and determining the applicability of attributes and skills. But procedural -- the process by which things happen in the game -- there is no discernible difference.

They’re definitely extant differences. You may disagree with me that one or the other is supported by the rules of one edition or another, but there are very real differences in the procedure - primarily who’s describing the character’s action abs what criteria is the DM using to determine whether or not to call for a roll. And in my experience they lead to larger differences in the overall play experience. (And pretty soon the word experience is going to start losing meaning in my brain )

I will nott hat we are at that point in the conversation where I think we understand one another's perspectives, we just happen to disagree. I am happy to continue to discuss it. I just don't want to come off as being overly insistent by repeating myself. And, of course, it is totally okay that we view it differently. As far as I can tell, we and our players are both enjoying the games we are playing, so there's no right or wrong in this case.

Unlike arguments about baths.

I think the baths joke went over my head, but I’m with you on that.

 

[Reynard]

So, it would be hidden, except when it isn't. I don't even get to that point.

That's fine, but I rather doubt you run the game as I do if you allow players to ask for skill checks. I get that you don't see much of a difference, but I used to run with players asking for skill checks, just like I did in 3e, but I've changed how I run, and I can tell you that it's not a small or minor difference. It makes a huge difference in how the game plays. My players feel like they have more input and control over what happens than they did before -- not because they guess what I want, but because I take what they want and use that to adjudicate. My workload is much less with this method because I'm relying on the players to provide the approach and goal and just have to use the very simple tools provided to adjudicate that, rather than having to come up with most of that on my own because I've allowed "I try to persuade the NPC."

I have no idea what you're on about. You assert that everything is different and better without being able to articulate any actual distinction. As near as I can tell you have limited your players' ability to engage the game by refusing to allow them to request the use of the skills they imbued their characters with. You have said that you don't ask them to read your mind but then decide to interpret for yourself their meaning instead of simply asking their meaning. At least, that's what I get from your rather terse language.

Whatever is happening here, we are not communicating well and I don't feel like it's productive to repeat ourselves ad nauseum.

 

[Reynard]

but there are very real differences in the procedure - primarily who’s describing the character’s action abs what criteria is the DM using to determine whether or not to call for a roll.

Here's where I am not seeing the difference I guess. In my examples, the DM describes the starting situation and the player responds with a desired action and outcome, to which the DM replies with a required roll. The player rolls, and the DM adjudicates the result in relation to the initial situation and the player's action and intent. I don't see how that is different between 3e and 5e. Can you articulate where the fundamental change occurs?

 

[Oofta]

I’m not aware of any podcasts or streams run in this way, but it’d be something to look out for. I know iserith did an actual play with the intent of teaching his techniques way back during either the late stages of the 5e playtest or the early days after its release, though I think that was in text? And I imagine he would probably not be entirely satisfied these days with the way he ran it back then. Also I doubt it exists anymore since the WotC forums went down. I also remember during the playtest the developers did a series, on YouTube I think, of them playing through a modified version of some famous module or another with the playtest rules. I don’t recall if the way Mearls DMed that was consistent with what I view as the style 5e suggests or not, but I think either way it would be very enlightening to go back and watch to see how the folks who were making the game actually handled it at the time. I dunno, but if I ever do find a game that resembles my preferred style I’ll gladly share a link.


As I said in my response to @prabe, I feel like painting all approaches that might fall under the umbrella of “intimidation” doesn’t leave enough room for nuance. Threatening to kill the goblin if he doesn’t talk and threatening to tickle him if he doesn’t could both reasonably be described as intimidation, but I don’t see them both having the same likelihood of success. Likewise, offering to protect him from his leader if he rats her out and asking pretty please with a cherry on top could both be considered persuasion but one seems much more likely to be effective. Deciding that Intimidation is going to be easier that Persuasion without knowing how the character is attempting to intimidate or persuade the goblin just doesn’t make sense to me. Unless of course you’re leaving the specifics of how the player does it undefined until after the roll has been made, and using the result to inform your narration of what happens. That’s the method I tend to associate with 3e, and it works perfectly well, it just isn’t what I prefer.


Yeah, I get that concern. I just don’t think it’s as big a problem as people often worry it is. One of my regular players is in fact autistic, one has tics that make most social interaction difficult, and one has serious social anxiety, (and one is a professional actor!) but they’re all able to follow my narration and describe goals and approaches with a reasonable degree of specificity. As we are all playing in good faith, there is no need for games of trying to guess how the DM thinks, simply thinking about the world as real and functioning under consistent logic, and acting according to that understanding is perfectly sufficient.


Despite all the hand-wringing about Matt Mercer effects and what not, I actually think critical role is a pretty decent example of a fairly typical, if especially well-acted 5e game looks like. At least in terms of technique. Matt gets pretty descriptive, and the players get way into their characters, but fundamentally the process is pretty much the same as what I see at most 5e tables. And it’s ironically the process I associate with 3e and 4e. I don’t think most 5e players are familiar with the style that my interpretation of the 5e rules has lead me to, or even conceive of it as an option, which is why it can be so difficult to express and these threads always get so long. And I think that’s too bad, because it’s a fun way to play. It probably wouldn’t be for everyone, but I find that a lot of commonly-expressed problems DMs have with the 5e system cease to be problems under it.


We could try. The thing is, I usually find these examples too lacking in context to give adequate answers. I try my best, but a lot of unspoken assumptions always go into such examples, and one usually has to make a lot of other assumptions to answer, so we end up representing these nebulous versions of what we do that don’t really accurately reflect our play experiences, and then we end up picking each others’ examples apart and nobody walks away with any better an understanding of the others’ positions. I’m willing to give it another try, but I don’t think it’s likely to be very useful to anyone.

Well, if you're ever brave enough to record a session and post it let me know.

As far as streaming, I listen to CR now and then and I listened to Chris Perkin's game for a while (Dice Camera Action?). Perkin's game also looked pretty similar to mine based on what I remember. I suspect he understands the intent behind the rules better than anyone who posts here.

Anyway, this discussion just goes round and round so I'm going to bail out again at least for now. Have a good one!

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok I may be reading wrong but it sounds like you are demanding a paragraph from your players.

Not at all. I demand only reasonable specificity, and I have provided several examples of what I consider reasonable throughout this thread. In particular, check out post #85 where I provide several examples of different approaches one might take to trying to get a guard to let you past.

Back to the guard post which of the following is the must?
DM. "You see a bored looking guard at their post." (I have already set the DC at 13.

Umm... Why have you already set the DC when you don’t know what action the character is taking?

Chaos John, " I walk over. Batting my eyes and start flirting with them. I like their icy blue eyes. And my oh my what big muscles they have. And their breath is minty fresh.:
Quiet John " I flirt with the guard to get by."
Rolling John " I go 13 on a persuasion DM".
I have all three types of the players above, and if they all hit 13. they are all bypassing the guard with no combat. Occasionally Rolling John ticks me off especially if the encounter was going to be an auto pass.

Quiet John about hits the minimum requirement of reasonable specificity. Chaos John has actually provided me less useful information, since he has only described an approach (and a comment about his character’s internal thoughts which I don’t generally encourage, but it’s fine), and no goal. Rolling John has provided me with neither a goal nor am approach, and merely indicated that he thinks what his character is doing might succeed, might fail, has consequences for failure, and that he thinks proficiency in Persuasion will help him succeed.

 

[Charlaquin]

Here's where I am not seeing the difference I guess. In my examples, the DM describes the starting situation and the player responds with a desired action and outcome, to which the DM replies with a required roll. The player rolls, and the DM adjudicates the result in relation to the initial situation and the player's action and intent. I don't see how that is different between 3e and 5e. Can you articulate where the fundamental change occurs?

I haven’t been seeing a desired action in your examples, only desired outcome and proficiency. In those examples, either the DM would need to describe what the character does after the roll is made, or the in-fiction action would be left ambiguous. Going back to your earlier example:

The most efficient way to go about it, IMO, is something that looks like this:
DM: There's a guard in front of the door.
Player: I want to use my Persuasion proficiency to charm him into letting me through. (may or may not be followed by in character role play, 3rd person narration, or other fiction)
DM: Okay. Roll.
Player: [results of die roll]
DM: This happens.

Assuming the player’s action declaration was not “followed by in character role play, 3rd person narration, or other fiction,” the player has given the DM no information about what their character is doing. I can glean that their desired outcome is to get through, and that they want to apply their Persuasion proficiency to the check, but not the in-fiction action that is meant to get them there. “Charm him” is not reasonably specific. So when the DM says “this happens,” either “this” must include the missing information about what the player’s character did, or the action must be left nonspecific.

The approach I associate with 3e is for the DM to include the information about what the character did in their description of what happens, usually referring to the result of the die roll to help them make up a fitting narrative. For example on a high roll the DM might say something like “you walk up to the guard, stare deeply into his eyes, and whisper to him how much you’d really appreciate if he let you through. He blushes and fumbles with his keys as he unlocks the door.” On a low roll the DM might say something like “well you thought you were being sexy, but it just comes off as desperate as you clumsily fiddle with the buttons on his uniform. He stands resolute and refuses to let you through.”

That’s not something I generally enjoy in D&D, I would prefer the player to be the only one to describe their own character’s actions, but moreover it can clash with some of 5e’s systems. For example, a common grievance you hear from DMs is that players never remember to spend inspiration. You’ll notice that the only consequence for the low roll in the example was not getting through the door and maybe looking a little silly, but nothing was really lost. In my experience these kinds of low-risk rolls happen a lot under this style of play, which can make it difficult for players to assess when stakes are sufficiently high that they should expend a limited resource to mitigate the risk of failure. Under the style of play that I believe 5e encourages, rolls always come with a risk, so it’s much easier to make that assessment. Are you making a roll? Then something is at risk, and it’s probably worth it to spend inspiration.