Your example didn’t include a description of the actions of the PC though...
If you know exactly what he was saying, then you are misrepresenting it, because he was not saying that whether a roll is needed to determine success changes based on whether the player references a check or not.
But the player in your example didn’t describe an approach at all!
Then you and
@iserith are talking past each other, because nothing about this assertion is in any way contrary to his point.
Again,
@iserith, correct me if I’m wrong about that.
Why would I include it? The point has nothing to do with the particulars of the action declaration, except for the idea that asking for a check has literally any effect on how the action is adjudicated. I only included what was relevant. I included the fact that the action and approach were described. Since the specifics aren’t relevant to my point, again, why would I include them?
As for any “misinterpretation”, nope. But, hey, they knew what I was saying, so I’m good.
I think the objection he's making is something like this: I'm saying that it's smart play not to ask for checks because ideally you don't want to roll. He's saying even if a player does ask for a check, he's not going to retroactively decide that the outcome of the task is uncertain and has a meaningful consequence for failure just because a player asked, so what's the big deal?
If that is a correct summation of the objection, then I can only say "good." It just means the player asked for a check for no apparent good reason. But this isn't what I'm referring to.
The smart play as I see it, given the game's rules and processes and assuming the DM is trying to adhere to them, is to pay attention and engage with the environment the DM took the time to describe in a way that attempts to complete a task by removing any uncertainty as to the outcome and/or the meaningful consequence for failure. This is how you avoid rolling an ability check. If your goal is success, rolling is not the best strategy. The character's proficiencies and resources are insurance in case you do end up having to roll.
If this was not the objection, then I'll stand by for clarification.
Yeah that’s about it. IME, most DMs aren’t going to change the nature of the situation just because the player said “roll stealth” as part of their action/approach description. It requires a roll or doesn’t based on how you approach the action. That’s it. So, while I’d consider a good description
better engagement with the world, I don’t buy that it’s “smarter play”, nor do I want my players to be trying to win the game by outsmarting the rules, which that comes across as. IMO D&D is a vastly better game for the decreased emphasis on “smart play/player skill”, but I know some folks like their D&D closer to Dark Souls, where it’s “get good“ or die repeatedly until you give up.
I would hazard a guess that your mindset is much less “win D&D” than the description comes across, though. Forum debates lead to exaggerated perceptions of each others’ stances.
But on another note, I said I’d clarify something. When I referred to unnecessary rolls, I wasn’t speaking of the off-topic idea of the DM making or asking for unnecessary rolls to keep the players guessing. I was referring to the on-topic idea of letting rolls that I didn’t ask for slide, and using them to determine things about how things play out other than success.
eg, when the player rolls a stealth check to shadow a mark unnoticed in a scene where I see no reasonable chance of failure for this expert assassin, I don’t admonish the player or say “no need for a roll you just succeed”. Instead, I say, “Okay you succeed regardless of the roll, but what did you roll?” And when they tell me, I think about the scene, and I weave new elements into the scene, or decide what route the mark takes, or decide which of several potential complications will arise, or give them additional information if it’s a good roll, or something like that.
This offloads some cognitive work from me onto the dice, and often onto the players as I say, “okay, there was going to be a complication regardless, but Sinjin is way stealthier than this job requires, so I’m gonna let the group represent his superior knowledge of the City. Which of these two options can he deftly avoid, instead dealing with the other complication?”
D&D benefits, IME, from letting the dice be more than success or failure. The DMG encourages this, though I’ll be damned if I’m gonna leaf through it today to find the passage that talks about degrees of success and letting a poor roll fail forward or present a mixed result that’s more interesting than a total failure.
