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

[Ovinomancer]

Eh, it's possible that I'm not communicating well, but at this point I don't really give a damn. I'm done. Y'all definitely don't understand what I'm saying, whether that's on me or not.

The player is more engaged, and the resolution absolutely doesn't involve more work on my end.

I follow what you're saying. Your players roll dice for skill checks unprompted. You decide if the roll is necessary or not without consideration of if it was made already. You do, however, use the roll as a prompt for you to add flavor to a scene. I'm unclear if this flavor ever has any impact or if it's just flavor, but that's a different conversation. I'm pretty sure I get this. Also, your players will provide you with clear goal and approach for task resolution even if they roll dice without prompting for a skill check. That seems a bit harder to visualize, but I'll go with it.

What I have issue with is the claim that you using the unnecessary die rolls to add flavor is indicative of the player having input into the scene. You've switched this to 'engaged' here, which is a different claim, and leave the question open of 'more engaged than what?' I also wonder why you do more work, and see that additional work as valuable (and I can see that, you like the result, you should be proud of it), but you're angry that people point out it's more work. Of course it's more work. It's valuable work, though, in that it makes your game better. I'm very confused at the anger you show here and the denial that it's more work. When did doing more work as GM suddenly because an absolute negative? I do lots of work as GM (differently than you, in places), and I'd never say that I didn't do more work when I was and thought it was a good outcome. I think you should embrace your method a bit more than you seem to want to.

 

[Ovinomancer]

We have posts literally saying that the players need to tell the DM they're searching a guy's sock drawer for the key. The only way I can see that being faster than a quick roll or two is if I describe a completely empty room with a single bureau with only one drawer containing socks then yes it will take no time at all.

Anything other than that and it's going to be a fair amount of give and take - searching drawers, under beds, behind pictures and so on. At least in any game I've ever played in or listened to on a podcast that does this sort of thing.

Which, if it's what you and yours enjoys go for it. If I'm misrepresenting what you mean give me a simple example. Don't continue to make accusations of unfair representation when I have no idea what your game is like because you won't explain it.

No, we have posts that say if the player says they search the sock drawer and the key is there that they automatically succeed. This doesn't say that play is waiting for the players to extensively detail everything about searching a room because the example doesn't start with a whole room. Why is the player looking in the sock drawer? Don't know, didn't start there, but, if it were my game, it would be because they probably already had a good reason to look in the sock drawer.

I don't have big rooms full of stuff with the intent for players to search for a key. This is a feature of games that use lots of 'skill' checks to resolve things. It's absolutely not how I'd set something up. If there's a key in a sock drawer, it won't be at the end of a long session of meticulously searching a big room, it'll be because the PCs have a good reason to look in the sock drawer.

 

[Oofta]

No, we have posts that say if the player says they search the sock drawer and the key is there that they automatically succeed. This doesn't say that play is waiting for the players to extensively detail everything about searching a room because the example doesn't start with a whole room. Why is the player looking in the sock drawer? Don't know, didn't start there, but, if it were my game, it would be because they probably already had a good reason to look in the sock drawer.

I don't have big rooms full of stuff with the intent for players to search for a key. This is a feature of games that use lots of 'skill' checks to resolve things. It's absolutely not how I'd set something up. If there's a key in a sock drawer, it won't be at the end of a long session of meticulously searching a big room, it'll be because the PCs have a good reason to look in the sock drawer.

But how do they even know there's a sock drawer unless you describe the room in detail? How would they ever know to look in that one specific location? If they do know exactly where to look - how? Why? For that matter why even play out the scene? Just go from "you know where it is" to "you went and got it, what's next?"

I can't think of any reason why they would know exactly where to look so if they don't know exactly where to look then they have to take time to search the room which will take time, literal game time if they have to describe exactly what they are doing. In my games it will be off screen and summed up, no mention of sock drawers necessary.

Because the scenario doesn't make any sense to me ...
DM: You open the door to Bob's bedroom. There's a bed with an iron bound chest at it's foot, a bureau, wardrobe and small writing desk.
Player: We search the sock drawer.
DM: You find the key.

WTF? Huh? How exactly do you see that playing out differently? Obviously that's not going to happen ... so what does it look like?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Perhaps you're reading tone into my posts. I don't have a "superior attitude." I'm just saying what I do and why. You disagree and seem to take things the wrong way by the looks of it. And not just my posts either.

You said:



What I provided was what the rules suggest is reasonable specificity with regard to players describing what they want to do and how the DM should adjudicate this. You find this boring, you said. "Lame," even.

You added that your players do describe their goal and approach. But clearly if you find the aforementioned sort of play boring, then a plausible conclusion in my view is that your players aren't, in fact, engaging in that level of reasonable specificity, nor are you adjudicating in a way that the rules suggest. Your players are making some effort at description and tacking on a request to make an ability check based on what you're saying. (Or a "skill check" as you call it.) You are then taking extra steps to incorporate the result of an unnecessary ability check into your subsequent narration of the result.

What am I not getting?

You keep pushing the weird assumption that my players aren’t being specific, and I just can’t be bothered to keep this going.

 

[Charlaquin]

You keep pushing the weird assumption that my players aren’t being specific, and I just can’t be bothered to keep this going.

You keep implying it by contrasting your games with “lame, boring” ones wherein there is an expectation of reasonable specificity in action declaration.

 

[iserith]

You keep pushing the weird assumption that my players aren’t being specific, and I just can’t be bothered to keep this going.

You can stop responding at any time. But note that I didn't say your players weren't being specific, just that they might not be as specific as the example I pulled from the PHB which you said was "boring" and "lame."

 

[jasper]

...
DM: You open the door to Bob's bedroom. There's a bed with an iron bound chest at it's foot, a bureau, wardrobe and small writing desk.
(see below)
Player: We search the sock drawer.
DM: You find the key.

...

My players.
Chaos Bob, " I name the burro Eeyore and saddle it.
Quiet Bob, " I put a sock over the knob of the door on the outside."
Roll Bob , sounds of a die rolling, " I got a 13 perception."
Nice bob, " I search the drawer, then wardrobe."
Me. Sigh. "You find the key."

 

[prabe]

So, something like this has come up recently, I think, and it seems to boil down to whether the players know there's a sock drawer to mention specifically and whether the DM will treat any action description that doesn't specifically mention the sock drawer as having no chance of success (and I suppose whether the DM will treat any action description that mentions the sock drawer as having no chance of failure).

I guess I figure that reasonably competent and determined characters with adequate time are going to open every visible drawer that opens, so if they take enough time--which will depend on the size of the room and how much is in it--they'll search the sock drawer, even if the players don't specifically mention doing so. Even a quicker check might do the job--automatically if the players mention the drawers, on a die roll if they don't.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I follow what you're saying. Your players roll dice for skill checks unprompted. You decide if the roll is necessary or not without consideration of if it was made already. You do, however, use the roll as a prompt for you to add flavor to a scene. I'm unclear if this flavor ever has any impact or if it's just flavor, but that's a different conversation. I'm pretty sure I get this. Also, your players will provide you with clear goal and approach for task resolution even if they roll dice without prompting for a skill check. That seems a bit harder to visualize, but I'll go with it.

What I have issue with is the claim that you using the unnecessary die rolls to add flavor is indicative of the player having input into the scene. You've switched this to 'engaged' here, which is a different claim, and leave the question open of 'more engaged than what?' I also wonder why you do more work, and see that additional work as valuable (and I can see that, you like the result, you should be proud of it), but you're angry that people point out it's more work. Of course it's more work. It's valuable work, though, in that it makes your game better. I'm very confused at the anger you show here and the denial that it's more work. When did doing more work as GM suddenly because an absolute negative? I do lots of work as GM (differently than you, in places), and I'd never say that I didn't do more work when I was and thought it was a good outcome. I think you should embrace your method a bit more than you seem to want to.

I’m not angry, I’m just pointing out that it’s incorrect. I would be doing the same amount of description either way. The die roll just helps inform what specific information is in that descriptive work. Because why not?

Also, it has reduced my workload over time, because I can now just leave certain things unplanned, and I use improv with heavy player input a lot more, rather than trying to prep everything in advance. This has enhanced game.

As for the “hard to visualize” part, maybe I can clarify that a bit. The playing might say something like, “I search the room thoroughly, [description of what they search and how]” and then roll an investigation or perception check, and tell me the check result. If there is no time restraint, and I see no reasonable way they’d fail, I either ignore the roll or use it to determine something else. Sometimes that involves asking either the group or a particular player to come up with something that happens or something interesting but unimportant that is found,etc, other times I have an immediate idea and I just talk it out as part of narrating success

Now, I will say that if a good idea is sparked that does lead to more work, but that is by far not the norm. Side quests, recurring NPCs, unexpected character development, etc have all sprung from these moments, but 90% of the time it’s flavor, or just a “here is a little more info to make a decision between going right vs left” sort of minor benefit.

All of which is super tangential to the point that actually drew me into this thread, which is that skill checks exist regardless of the wording of the rules, and that asking for skill checks isn’t different from asking for ability checks and stating that they can add prof bonus if trained in XYZ skill.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You keep implying it by contrasting your games with “lame, boring” ones wherein there is an expectation of reasonable specificity in action declaration.

I haven’t ever done that. I have never referred to specific action declaration as lame or boring.