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

[Reynard]

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:



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.

Ah. Okay. There's a lot of information in here that helps me understand your meaning. Thanks you. I'll try an address them in some orderly form.

1) As a DM I feel that "I try to charm him to open the door" is perfectly sufficient. I don't actually care how the PC goes about that, and if the player cares they will be plenty specific for both of us. I know this is more operational than immersive, but it is generally the way I run my games and always have. Hence probably why I don't see a functional difference.

2) The DM describing what the PC does is a problem. I try and limit myself to describing what happens to the PC, but I am sure I accidentally cross that line especially, as you point out, when the player did not give a lot of information in their initial action description. That said, in my experience, the player who doesn't go deeply into their own description is often wanting that kind of description back from the DM. Many players are used to more passive entertainment (books, TV) and engage RPGs similarly.

3) I use a lot of rolls (as I mentioned above) because I glean more information than pass/fail from those rolls, and in my games at least people are still regularly spending Inspiration and then trying to get more. I see what you are saying but don't experience the problem.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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?

Fundamentally, I don't have to guess what the player does. "I try to persuade the NPC," for instance, leaves me trying to guess how that persuasion goes -- are you flirting/cajoling/bargaining/bribing -- and what the end goal may be -- get past/gain access/get discount? Now, we could expand that situation and maybe answer those questions, but the point stands -- my method never has me assume any action by the PCs because the the players tell me what the PCs do.

That's a big difference, unless you've never, ever had a moment where you've adjudicated an action from a roll request and had a player say, "I didn't want to do that!"

3.x encouraged skill check first play. It did this by setting concrete DCs for specific actions and circumstances. The GM was supposed to look at what an action was and use the preset DC, and expect the players to ask for skill checks. 5e is different, in the players are not supposed to ask for skill checks at all -- they're supposed to describe what their character does and then the GM adjudicates it. Setting a DC isn't based on a preset set of circumstances, the GM is to assign it based on the action stated by the player. This is why DCs in the book are Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard, Nearly Impossible (10, 15, 20, 25, 30) and not like they are presented in the 3.x books (climb wall DC 20, plenty of handholds +5, slippery -10, etc.). This is a pretty large difference, and if you're skipping the part where you have the players describe what they do, then you're cutting out an important part of the play loop. By letting the player skip to setting the terms of adjudication, you've skipped the GM's authority to determine adjudication and also left a lot of play off the table. Personally, I like letting things work without a roll when it makes sense, so I'm going to jealously protect my authority to adjudicate actions and not let players do it.

 

[Reynard]

Fundamentally, I don't have to guess what the player does. "I try to persuade the NPC," for instance, leaves me trying to guess how that persuasion goes -- are you flirting/cajoling/bargaining/bribing -- and what the end goal may be -- get past/gain access/get discount? Now, we could expand that situation and maybe answer those questions, but the point stands -- my method never has me assume any action by the PCs because the the players tell me what the PCs do.

That's a big difference, unless you've never, ever had a moment where you've adjudicated an action from a roll request and had a player say, "I didn't want to do that!"

3.x encouraged skill check first play. It did this by setting concrete DCs for specific actions and circumstances. The GM was supposed to look at what an action was and use the preset DC, and expect the players to ask for skill checks. 5e is different, in the players are not supposed to ask for skill checks at all -- they're supposed to describe what their character does and then the GM adjudicates it. Setting a DC isn't based on a preset set of circumstances, the GM is to assign it based on the action stated by the player. This is why DCs in the book are Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard, Nearly Impossible (10, 15, 20, 25, 30) and not like they are presented in the 3.x books (climb wall DC 20, plenty of handholds +5, slippery -10, etc.). This is a pretty large difference, and if you're skipping the part where you have the players describe what they do, then you're cutting out an important part of the play loop. By letting the player skip to setting the terms of adjudication, you've skipped the GM's authority to determine adjudication and also left a lot of play off the table. Personally, I like letting things work without a roll when it makes sense, so I'm going to jealously protect my authority to adjudicate actions and not let players do it.

But I am not. In every example I have given, step 2 is "the player describes their action and desired outcome." Often this requires some back and forth as the DM and/or player ask for clarifying information. Which I also mentioned repeatedly.

And procedurally, the next step is "The DM determines if there is a roll, and if so what the DC is." There is functionally no difference between making it up on a whim or because it was your SO that asked or because Bob didn't bring pizza money (again) OR by looking up the DC on a chart. The PROCEDURE is the same. The mechanics are different. Now, does the existence of charts full of DCs change the way player's engage the game? Sure, but it isn't FUNDAMENTALLY different.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ah. Okay. There's a lot of information in here that helps me understand your meaning. Thanks you. I'll try an address them in some orderly form.

Yes! Sweet progress! I’m glad that last post was helpful.

1) As a DM I feel that "I try to charm him to open the door" is perfectly sufficient. I don't actually care how the PC goes about that, and if the player cares they will be plenty specific for both of us. I know this is more operational than immersive, but it is generally the way I run my games and always have. Hence probably why I don't see a functional difference.

So, the fact that you don’t view specifics about what the character is doing as necessary and grokk it as immersive rather than operational is another way in which our styles differ. I place the expectation of what I refer to as reasonable specificity on my players because my operation for determining the necessity (or lack thereof), difficulty, and type of check to call for requires that information. When a player states an action, I ask myself “could what the character is doing possibly bring about their desired outcome? Could it fail to do so?” If the answer to either is “no,” I describe the inevitable results. If the answer to both is “yes,” I ask myself what the consequence would be if it failed. If there is no consequence, or the consequence is trivial, I describe the results of eventual success. If there is a meaningful consequence such as a loss of resources or opportunity, I ask myself whether the goal would be easy, moderate, or hard to achieve by the means described, and set the DC accordingly. Finally, I decide which of the 6 abilities would be most likely to help the character succeed in their goal, given the stated approach, and call for the check. Then the player can decide if they think any of their proficiencies would be helpful, or ask if they are unsure.

2) The DM describing what the PC does is a problem. I try and limit myself to describing what happens to the PC, but I am sure I accidentally cross that line especially, as you point out, when the player did not give a lot of information in their initial action description. That said, in my experience, the player who doesn't go deeply into their own description is often wanting that kind of description back from the DM. Many players are used to more passive entertainment (books, TV) and engage RPGs similarly.

Yeah. I don’t necessarily think it’s a bad thing - as you say, many players are quite happy with it. It’s just something I personally don’t enjoy as a player, so I try not to do it as a DM. Plus, having the player provide the approach rather than thinking it up myself is a bit of cognitive load off my plate.

3) I use a lot of rolls (as I mentioned above) because I glean more information than pass/fail from those rolls, and in my games at least people are still regularly spending Inspiration and then trying to get more. I see what you are saying but don't experience the problem.

For sure. The Inspiration thing is just one example, there are many ripple effects caused by this difference in adjudication style. And most people who have been DMing a long time have long since developed their own strategies for dealing with these ripple effects, such that we often don’t even realize we’re doing it. I probably have my own such DMing idiosyncrasies that I don’t notice cause they’re what I’m used to. But I found that after adopting this style, which I picked up during the 5e playtest, has lead my games to function more smoothly than they ever did before. YMMV of course, and if you’ve got a style you like that works for you, more power to you.

 

[Ovinomancer]

But I am not. In every example I have given, step 2 is "the player describes their action and desired outcome." Often this requires some back and forth as the DM and/or player ask for clarifying information. Which I also mentioned repeatedly.

And procedurally, the next step is "The DM determines if there is a roll, and if so what the DC is." There is functionally no difference between making it up on a whim or because it was your SO that asked or because Bob didn't bring pizza money (again) OR by looking up the DC on a chart. The PROCEDURE is the same. The mechanics are different. Now, does the existence of charts full of DCs change the way player's engage the game? Sure, but it isn't FUNDAMENTALLY different.

No, the GM did not have the option to ignore the DC of some actions in 3.x -- they were fixed and expected. To ignore them, the GM would have had to invoke a rule zero change to the procedure. This is a pretty large difference. I think that you're misremembering how codified 3.x was (or 4e, for that matter).

I just cracked my 3.5 Player's Handbook. It says, under Playing the Game:

Whenever you attempt an action that has some chance of failure, you roll a twenty-sided die (d20). To determine if your character succeeds at a task (such as attacking a monster or using a skill), you do this:

*roll a d20.
*Add any relevant modifiers
*Compare the result to a target number

If the result equals or exceeds the target number (set by the DM or given in the rules), your character succeeds. If the result is lower than the target number, you fail.

This differs noticeably, in that any chance of failure requires a roll under 3.x, and the DC is not set by the GM, but instead set by the rules first, GM only if the rules don't provide the DC. That's a pretty big difference.

 

[Charlaquin]

But I am not. In every example I have given, step 2 is "the player describes their action and desired outcome." Often this requires some back and forth as the DM and/or player ask for clarifying information. Which I also mentioned repeatedly.

And procedurally, the next step is "The DM determines if there is a roll, and if so what the DC is." There is functionally no difference between making it up on a whim or because it was your SO that asked or because Bob didn't bring pizza money (again) OR by looking up the DC on a chart. The PROCEDURE is the same. The mechanics are different. Now, does the existence of charts full of DCs change the way player's engage the game? Sure, but it isn't FUNDAMENTALLY different.

I think at this point we’re getting lost in semantics about what constitutes procedure vs. mechanics, fundamentals vs. engagement style, etc. What ever words we use for it, it leads to a not-insignificant difference in the gameplay experience.

 

[Reynard]

No, the GM did not have the option to ignore the DC of some actions in 3.x -- they were fixed and expected. To ignore them, the GM would have had to invoke a rule zero change to the procedure. This is a pretty large difference. I think that you're misremembering how codified 3.x was (or 4e, for that matter).

I just cracked my 3.5 Player's Handbook. It says, under Playing the Game:



This differs noticeably, in that any chance of failure requires a roll under 3.x, and the DC is not set by the GM, but instead set by the rules first, GM only if the rules don't provide the DC. That's a pretty big difference.

No one ever came to my table and demanded I not change the DC of a check for any reason when I was running 3.x, any more than anyone has come to my table running 5e telling me I am not allowed to consult a chart to determine a DC (which I often do, using sources not found in the PHB or DMG). I don't think "rule zero" is the last ditch, red button catastrophe you are painting it as in 3.x: it's pretty bog standard running the game stuff. The codified part of skill DCs in 3.x meant it was easy to determine a difficulty and for standard actions it meant that process was fast and consistent -- or, in a word, efficient. In 5e, lacking those charts, it becomes a whim of the DM's mood or narrative sense. Some players (certainly not all) chafe against this because they see it as fiat.

Either way, I still don't see the fundamental difference in play. There's certainly a flavor difference, and we all have preferences, and no one I know plays any version of D&D as it is laid down in the manuals. One can play loose 3.x just as easily as once can play hard ass 5e.

(btw, it is worth mentioning that I don't refer to 4E in any of my comments simply because I did not play it or run it long enough to be able to comment)

 

[Reynard]

I think at this point we’re getting lost in semantics about what constitutes procedure vs. mechanics, fundamentals vs. engagement style, etc. What ever words we use for it, it leads to a not-insignificant difference in the gameplay experience.

I agree. And I think one of the biggest differences is, as mentioned, I use die rolls (dare I say "skill checks") as a narrative tool all the time, so this idea that you should only rarely roll and only when the stakes are high is antithetical to my DMing stye. So, even if the 5E DMG says "don't roll unless you have to" I ignore it because those dice inform me of things.

For example, if the PCs are looking for a silversmith (an example that came up early in the thread) I will have them make a check (I usually give the players a choice between a couple things, such as Investigation or Persuasion, or simply let them tell me which skill they want to use and explain how they are employing it). Now, a low roll on the check does not mean they fail to find the silversmith and got lost looking for it. Chances are, I had not given the silversmith a single thought prior to this moment. So, instead, the low roll on the check tells me something about the silversmith.

Maybe they found it but it is closed. Why, it's the middle of the day? Trouble, I'll wager. What kind? The kind that will drag the PCs in, for sure.

All that sort of thing flies through my brain in a couple moments and becomes part of the game world from that moment on. For me, after years and years of doing it this way highly successfully, this is a far superior outcome than simply saying "Yes" or "No" because this die roll -- coupled with whatever other context was happening in play -- told me something about the world. I would have learned something else about the world had it come up very high or right in the middle, too. There was no "DC" at all, and the task was trivial, but the result of the roll wasn't.

 

[Charlaquin]

(btw, it is worth mentioning that I don't refer to 4E in any of my comments simply because I did not play it or run it long enough to be able to comment)

FWIW, I found 4e’s adjudication style to be largely the same as 3e’s, just with much more streamlined guidelines for determining DCs, which was appropriated. I believe the intent of 5e’s design is for DCs to be determine contextually, based on the DM’s judgment. The fact that running it in 3/4e style requires one to look outside the official rule book for such DC-setting guidelines or make them one’s self is another example of a way in which 5e’s design is better suited to the style I’ve been advocating.

 

[Charlaquin]

I agree. And I think one of the biggest differences is, as mentioned, I use die rolls (dare I say "skill checks") as a narrative tool all the time, so this idea that you should only rarely roll and only when the stakes are high is antithetical to my DMing stye. So, even if the 5E DMG says "don't roll unless you have to" I ignore it because those dice inform me of things.

For example, if the PCs are looking for a silversmith (an example that came up early in the thread) I will have them make a check (I usually give the players a choice between a couple things, such as Investigation or Persuasion, or simply let them tell me which skill they want to use and explain how they are employing it). Now, a low roll on the check does not mean they fail to find the silversmith and got lost looking for it. Chances are, I had not given the silversmith a single thought prior to this moment. So, instead, the low roll on the check tells me something about the silversmith.

Maybe they found it but it is closed. Why, it's the middle of the day? Trouble, I'll wager. What kind? The kind that will drag the PCs in, for sure.

All that sort of thing flies through my brain in a couple moments and becomes part of the game world from that moment on. For me, after years and years of doing it this way highly successfully, this is a far superior outcome than simply saying "Yes" or "No" because this die roll -- coupled with whatever other context was happening in play -- told me something about the world. I would have learned something else about the world had it come up very high or right in the middle, too. There was no "DC" at all, and the task was trivial, but the result of the roll wasn't.

Yeah, the approach you describe hear is in my experience a pretty common one, and can be quite fun. But it is very different from my style.