D&D 5E Using social skills on other PCs

[HammerMan]

I respectfully disagree with this sentiment.

yes of course you do

 

[HammerMan]

That's good, I'm glad you're having no issues, despite having to go back and ask clarifying questions or the like and that your players are fine with you assuming or establishing what their characters are doing.

funny, you are the one that wont let common spoken words work, you need to follow your 'gaming loop pattern'

I don't prefer to do that. Further, there is no "template" or sentence structure that is required.

yes there is. You have to phrase with out mentioning a skill what you want without asking questions. The other poster has a more formal X for Y but you do it too. the number of times in this very thread you have said you would stop game to ask they rephrase something or ask for clarifications make me laugh.

It's just one human talking to another human and being clear on what they want to do and how.

except it isn't. How many times have you said you would not except "I search the desk"

If that seems weird to you, that's on you and how you interact with other humans, not on any special rules that exist at my table.

just look at the way you wrote this.

 

[Maxperson]

True story: I struggle to get my group to adopt the 5e playstyle. They have so much experience with previous editions, and that always worked for them, that they just aren't motivated to question it. I have to sneak up on them with it.

It's been like trying to ride a rodeo bull, but aside from a few backslides, my group has finally come around to not asking to roll for ability checks and simply describe to me what they want to do. We've been playing 5e for 2ish years.

 

[HammerMan]

True story: I struggle to get my group to adopt the 5e playstyle. They have so much experience with previous editions, and that always worked for them, that they just aren't motivated to question it. I have to sneak up on them with it.

may I ask what about the current rules seems to be the biggest hurdle for you?

 

[iserith]

funny, you are the one that wont let common spoken words work, you need to follow your 'gaming loop pattern'

DM describes the environment. Players describe what they want to do. DM narrates the results. Repeat.

Do you play that differently? Do players describe the environment? Do they narrate results of their own actions? Do DMs say what the characters do?

yes there is. You have to phrase with out mentioning a skill what you want without asking questions. The other poster has a more formal X for Y but you do it too. the number of times in this very thread you have said you would stop game to ask they rephrase something or ask for clarifications make me laugh.

Players are free to mention skills. They can't ask to make ability checks. That is not supported by the game, not to mention that's not smart play. Questions are not actions. They are not descriptions of what the characters are doing. I can't adjudicate a question without assuming or establishing what the character is doing. None of this suggests players must do anything other than say what they want to do and hope to accomplish.

except it isn't. How many times have you said you would not except "I search the desk"

It's not about accepting or not accepting it. It's not enough for me to adjudicate that action fairly without making undue assumptions or asking questions of the player. What if the desk drawer is trapped? Shall I just say the character opens the drawer and sets it off? Shall I ask them questions about whether they open the drawers? All of that is dispensed with if the player is reasonably specific.

just look at the way you wrote this.

I search the sentence.

 

[Charlaquin]

do you see how I can look at this and see "can't just talk normal gotta fit a template"

use your own example, "Can I see any other exists?" that is a full sentence, and it makes perfect sense. How ever you prefer it be rephrased to “I look for another exit”

That’s a preference of mine, because it keeps the conversation focused on actual action that’s occurring in the fiction, instead of stepping back from the action to talk about the fiction in an abstract way. But it’s not a rule or anything and I don’t tell my players they can’t ask questions. I just explain my preference for active language in advance so we’re on the same page from the start.

what does one convey that the other lacks?

“I look for an exit” tells me that something is happening in the fiction. The character is actively looking around. The other pauses the action so we can establish, in an abstract manner, what is present in the fiction before the action can continue. Again, this is just a stylistic preference for me, which is a separate issue from the need to understand a player’s goal and character’s approach to resolve an action.

yes, once you get used to the word game I am sure it is... like jeopardy. If I am phrasing all answers as a question for enough time I can just do it... but it is still just a game of phrasing.

I don’t care how you phrase your action declaration (I do prefer that you declare an action rather than ask a question, but again, that’s a separate issue), as long as I can tell, without having to make assumptions, what you want to accomplish and what your character is doing to try and accomplish it. The “when in doubt” phrasing is just a recommendation for folks who are having trouble grokking what I’m asking for to fall back on.

most times yeah. Me and my friend (used to sit around a table now all on roll20) just talk to each other.


I may have to ask those questions if the request came out of left field "Um, the orc next to you in the bar? why?" but most times it will flow from the game and the context allows me to go with it. "Oh the orc you just asked like 4 quastions to and refused to talk... yeah I can connect those dots no issue"

and push 'go with context of scene/night/campaign' from you to 'all answer must be in the form of a qustion' to the PC

Great. I’m glad that works for you and your friends. I am not comfortable making the same assumptions you are. In order to determine if an action can succeed or fail and has meaningful stakes (which remember are my criteria for whether or not to call for an ability check) I need to know what actual activity is taking place, and what the intended result of that activity is.

For example, if you say, “I try the key I got off the cultist’s body on the lock,” I know that if it’s the right key, the approach (use the key) can’t fail to achieve the goal (open the lock), and if it’s the wrong key, I know it can’t succeed at achieving the goal. I can simply narrate the results. If you say “I try to pick the lock with my thieves’ tools,” I know that the approach (use the thieves’ tools) can succeed at achieving the goal (open the lock), and can also fail at achieving the goal. I also have enough information to determine if there are meaningful stakes (is the time it will take you to try to pick the lock precious? Is there a risk of your tools breaking? etc.) so I can determine if I should call for a check or not. If you say “I open the lock” and don’t tell me how, I don’t have enough information to determine those things and will have to ask for clarification - “how do you try to open it? Do you have a key? Lock picks? Do you just try to smash it? With your bare hands, or do you use some sort of tool?”

This is a very basic example. I hope you can imagine how a more abstract activity like trying to intimidate someone might get even more complex to try and understand in concrete terms if the player is not specific about what they’re trying to accomplish and why. Now, I could make assumptions - many DMs do. But that’s not something I want to do, because in my experience it can lead to “I didn’t say I was touching the handle!” moments. Besides that, I don’t think it should be my job, as DM, to establish what your character is doing in the fiction. That’s your role, you decide what your character thinks, feels, and does, and describe it to me. My role is to determine and describe to you the results of what your character does, possibly asking you to make a check if needed to make that determination. Then to describe the environment again to repeat the play loop.

 

[Charlaquin]

True story: I struggle to get my group to adopt the 5e playstyle. They have so much experience with previous editions, and that always worked for them, that they just aren't motivated to question it. I have to sneak up on them with it.

Would you like me to send you a copy of (or simply post to the forums, I suppose) my table rules? It’s a single-page document that I use to set expectations for new players to my table, seems to work pretty well for getting them to understand what I’m going for. I don’t know if it would be what your group needs, but it has served me pretty well.

 

[Nefermandias]

and we just play to have fun. we don't set expectations, and don't try to 'train' each other how to talk... we all do things a bit diffrent and still manage to get along for (in case of some of us) 30 years of gameing.

C'mon now, dude... You don't have to be that defensive. Everyone here is just sharing how they play their games. It's not about "training" people. Setting table expectations at the start of a campaign is something... expected.

 

[Charlaquin]

yes there is. You have to phrase with out mentioning a skill what you want without asking questions.

Who said you can’t mention a skill in your action declarations? I’m fine with players mentioning skills, in fact it can help me out by making clear what proficiency you think might apply if an ability check is needed to resolve the action.

Literally as long as you communicate what you want to accomplish and how, I don’t care how you say it.

 

[Maxperson]

I search the sentence.

How do you search the sentence? I need you to be reasonably specific so that I can adjudicate this.