D&D 5E Ability Check origins at your table

[Hussar]

Yes. I care. My players care. That’s the game to us. If a trap goes off, if a monster overhears, etc matters in our style of play. I honestly can’t imagine enjoying a game where it doesn’t ever matter.

But you already knew that because this is at least the 4th time you’ve expressed surprise and annoyance when i describe my game approach.

But, none of those things are determined by the narration of the player. All of those things are determined by the die roll. The trap only goes off if they open the trapped thing without disarming the trap. They cannot disarm the trap without the roll. They can write epic length poetry and it still all comes down to that check. The player can describe in intricate detail how they are opening that lock, their body position and whatnot, but, until the dice are rolled, we have no idea if he actually made noise or not.

It's not really surprise to be honest. It's more just bafflement. I don't see what you're getting out of it.

Remember, you're the one insisting that the player must narrate all this stuff before the check is made. For me, the narration all comes after the check is made. Most of the time narration is defined by the check. Player wants to sneak. Player rolls Stealth. Player rolls spectacularly badly. I, or the player in many cases, narrate that spectacularly bad roll. We do this often for perception checks (I look around. Perception 7. Is this my hand I see before me? )

What's the point of narration before the check is made? You must be constantly retconning narration. "I sneak down the corridor" "Roll - 5" "Uhh, you try to sneak down the corridor but make tons of noise doing so".

I just don't see the value in trying to narrate uncertain results.

-----

Edit to add. Remember, too, I do have no problem with the player making a declaration and the DM calling for a roll. That happens all the time too. Perfectly understandable. Heck, the player might not know what roll to make. There's lots of times we've discussed as a group what would be the most appropriate check. But, in any case, the DM calling for a roll after narration is fine.

But, it's also fine for the player to simply roll and ask for narration from the DM as well.

They're all just tools in the box.

 

[el-remmen]

But, none of those things are determined by the narration of the player. All of those things are determined by the die roll. The trap only goes off if they open the trapped thing without disarming the trap. They cannot disarm the trap without the roll. They can write epic length poetry and it still all comes down to that check. The player can describe in intricate detail how they are opening that lock, their body position and whatnot, but, until the dice are rolled, we have no idea if he actually made noise or not.

It's not really surprise to be honest. It's more just bafflement. I don't see what you're getting out of it.

Remember, you're the one insisting that the player must narrate all this stuff before the check is made. For me, the narration all comes after the check is made. Most of the time narration is defined by the check. Player wants to sneak. Player rolls Stealth. Player rolls spectacularly badly. I, or the player in many cases, narrate that spectacularly bad roll. We do this often for perception checks (I look around. Perception 7. Is this my hand I see before me? )

What's the point of narration before the check is made? You must be constantly retconning narration. "I sneak down the corridor" "Roll - 5" "Uhh, you try to sneak down the corridor but make tons of noise doing so".

I just don't see the value in trying to narrate uncertain results.

-----

Edit to add. Remember, too, I do have no problem with the player making a declaration and the DM calling for a roll. That happens all the time too. Perfectly understandable. Heck, the player might not know what roll to make. There's lots of times we've discussed as a group what would be the most appropriate check. But, in any case, the DM calling for a roll after narration is fine.

But, it's also fine for the player to simply roll and ask for narration from the DM as well.

They're all just tools in the box.

I don’t know how else to explain it to you except that where, how, and why you do something helps determine what happens aside from or in addition to success and failure.

 

[Oofta]

But, none of those things are determined by the narration of the player. All of those things are determined by the die roll. The trap only goes off if they open the trapped thing without disarming the trap. They cannot disarm the trap without the roll. They can write epic length poetry and it still all comes down to that check. The player can describe in intricate detail how they are opening that lock, their body position and whatnot, but, until the dice are rolled, we have no idea if he actually made noise or not.

It's not really surprise to be honest. It's more just bafflement. I don't see what you're getting out of it.

Remember, you're the one insisting that the player must narrate all this stuff before the check is made. For me, the narration all comes after the check is made. Most of the time narration is defined by the check. Player wants to sneak. Player rolls Stealth. Player rolls spectacularly badly. I, or the player in many cases, narrate that spectacularly bad roll. We do this often for perception checks (I look around. Perception 7. Is this my hand I see before me? )

What's the point of narration before the check is made? You must be constantly retconning narration. "I sneak down the corridor" "Roll - 5" "Uhh, you try to sneak down the corridor but make tons of noise doing so".

I just don't see the value in trying to narrate uncertain results.

-----

Edit to add. Remember, too, I do have no problem with the player making a declaration and the DM calling for a roll. That happens all the time too. Perfectly understandable. Heck, the player might not know what roll to make. There's lots of times we've discussed as a group what would be the most appropriate check. But, in any case, the DM calling for a roll after narration is fine.

But, it's also fine for the player to simply roll and ask for narration from the DM as well.

They're all just tools in the box.

For some people a good description does allow success at a character skill such as disabling a trap or searching a room. For players at those tables getting a get put of jail free card ... umm ... don't bother rolling a check ... that would have been otherwise required and could have failed is worth it.

By good description I mean explaining how they disable a trap or exactly where they searc, etc..

 

[Hussar]

For some people a good description does allow success at a character skill such as disabling a trap or searching a room. For players at those tables getting a get put of jail free card ... umm ... don't bother rolling a check ... that would have been otherwise required and could have failed is worth it.

By good description I mean explaining how they disable a trap or exactly where they searc, etc..

See, that's kinda where I get off the bus. I am not my character. My character is capable of things I am not and vice versa. Me exactly describing how I do something before I roll means that the roll doesn't really matter. If I can simply find the right description and succeed without a roll, that's just pulling me straight out of immersion.

I provide the dialogue, but the dice provide the direction.

 

[el-remmen]

I really don't get how you guys are going from "the description can help adjudicate the outcome" to "the roll doesn't matter." I know I haven't remotely said that the latter.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

See, that's kinda where I get off the bus. I am not my character. My character is capable of things I am not and vice versa. Me exactly describing how I do something before I roll means that the roll doesn't really matter. If I can simply find the right description and succeed without a roll, that's just pulling me straight out of immersion.

I provide the dialogue, but the dice provide the script.

When we consider The Role of Dice (DMG p 236), it would seem you (and, for sure, others on the forum) favor the Rolling With It style - especially since you say "the dice provide the script". Meanwhile others posters here, particularly those who are proponents of having players describe the approach and goal of their PCs before the DM adjudicates, lean more to The Middle Path style. That difference in styles might be where some of the disconnect arises in the discussion. When running a game according to The Middle Path, "at any time, [the DM] can decide that a player's action is automatically successful." So, those that follow this style don't adhere to the principle that "the dice provide the script." It goes without saying (but I will) that neither way is correct or incorrect, they are just styles of play. That whole section is an interesting read.

 

[Umbran]

Yes. I care. My players care. That’s the game to us. If a trap goes off, if a monster overhears, etc matters in our style of play. I honestly can’t imagine enjoying a game where it doesn’t ever matter.

It might be helpful to note that he didn't say "doesn't ever matter", or even words to that effect. We should be careful not to misrepresent what each other says here, or communication will grind to a halt.

 

[Umbran]

I don’t expect a player to have to know how to pick a lock, I do expect a player to tell me (and when they don’t I frequently ask) if their character is trying to be fast, being slow, trying to be quiet, squatting down in front of the door or standing to one side the best they can, etc.

Yeah, but if the player doesn't know about picking locks, they aren't making an informed choice with those details, are they? Aren't we mostly interested in their informed choices?

 

[Hussar]

I really don't get how you guys are going from "the description can help adjudicate the outcome" to "the roll doesn't matter." I know I haven't remotely said that the latter.

Ok, I'm obviously missing something here.

So, walk me through it. How does my character's posture while picking a lock result in me making more noise. Note, you cannot reference the actual roll, since you're saying that that roll isn't what generates the noise. So, how does my narration result in my lock picking becoming more or less noisy than other times?

 

[AmandaBarbarian]

At our table, the player just tells the DM what their character is doing in the fiction. It really is that simple.

I don't understand how after many post how you think "it really is that simple" applies.

If the DM has just described the room and the player says "I use Perception"... well the DM just described the room, you don't need to roll or "use Perception".

what is the diffrence between "I want to look more in-depth?" and "Can I make a perception check?"

We're encouraging the player to do some of the work of the shared story telling.

that comes off pretty insulting, as if people who name skills and ask for a roll aren't not sharing in the story telling

That is all that we're aiming for. Which is why "I'd like to more closely inspect the rug/tapestry/statue/whatever" is preferred over "Can I use Investigate?" It's not magic words.

except I don't know that I would call it magic words, but I do see why some are saying it is. Are you saying you don't understand what they mean, or are you saying even though you understand you don't like there choice of words?

It reminds me of all the teachers that used to say things about Axeing questions and aint... like "You understand what they mean"

There's no right way to act as your character. First person or third person, doesn't matter. It's just giving the DM something to work with, something that adds to the shared imagery in everyone's mind and that the DM can adjudicate.