D&D 5E At Your 5E Table, How Is It Agreed upon That the PCs Do Stuff Other than Attack?

[Oofta]

To add to what @Minigiant is saying here... I (almost) always provide the DC for a stated task and the stakes for success and failure. I don't consider it a take-back by the player if they decide to change their course of action. I consider it from the PC's perspective: they are (mostly) capable adventurers who have a reasonable sense of how difficult something is to do in the fiction and the potential consequences of said action. That's not always obvious from the player's perspective. FWIW, it's rare that a player actually changes course of action for their PC in our game, but the option is there.

I will give people information from the PC's perspective, but generally don't describe things in game specific terminology. Some checks and interaction can clarify difficulty and risk. So it will be a general easy or hard, but could also be potentially misleading. For example if they actually failed or barely made a perception check to find a trap they may think the trap is easier to disable than it is. But I'm also pretty generous with things like dexterity saves if they miss the check fail to disable by a small amount.

All depends on what works for you and your players.

 

[Pedantic]

I've marked what actually happens at my table, largely players stating actions and/or intentions, and then I'll tag appropriate skills for them to roll if I think it's necessary. I'll generally share the DC I've indexed a proposed action to with a player if they ask or if their odds of success are quite bad (I try to benchmark that at around 30%, but I don't have all their modifiers memorized, so it's an inexact science), though I might not reveal it, if the difficult is reliant on factors they don't know (often true for social checks).

My preferred state of affairs though, would be players declaring actions that are automatically referenced to abilities. I'd much prefer the game flow between asking me clarifying questions about the situation to directly making action declarations. Intent should be expressed in the choice of actions strung together. When shared, I assume it's a request for tactical advice about whether the course of actions described is likely to work or what problems are likely to emerge.

The problem with this in 5e is that skills don't actually list the tasks and DCs they cover, so players can't invoke them directly, so I've mostly subordinated how I'd prefer to do things to the processes of play the game caters to.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One thing I've noticed in actual play is that the majority of the time we really don't need to reference specific procedures for skill checks - once you're used to how a table plays you get into a rhythm of sorts and can just go without worrying about how to phrase things. The "correct for this table method" only matters when you're doing something outside the normal course of play.

For people who like to roll a lot, the rolls become predictable. I declare my intent to search the room at the same time as picking up my die and checking my Investigation modifier, because I'm 99% sure that's what's going to be asked of me. The dm might skip that step, but that's uncommon. I might even say "I investigate the room."

For tables I've played where detailed positioning matters, I will take my time asking questions and making very specific action declarations. I won't bother reaching for a die until the dm actually asks, because it could be a while and I don't like the feel of warm dice. But it doesn't take long to learn that habit.

At neither table do I expect strict adherence to a particular kind of phrasing. There are a lot of ways to declare one's intent. If you could only watch, the only difference is how often dice are actually rolled.

 

[Deset Gled]

Clearly stating both action and intention would clear up that poor communication though.

If the problem has been coming up constantly for almost 40 years, I'm would propose that forcing a divide between actions and intentions may actually be part of the source of the communication problems instead of a solution. Clearly, at least one of the parties involved is still struggling with it.

 

[Charlaquin]

If the problem has been coming up constantly for almost 40 years, I'm would propose that forcing a divide between actions and intentions may actually be part of the source of the communication problems instead of a solution. Clearly, at least one of the parties involved is still struggling with it.

It has not been coming up for me, ever since adopting the strategy of asking that players clearly state both.

 

[Oofta]

It has not been coming up for me, ever since adopting the strategy of asking that players clearly state both.

Whereas it's just never been a problem for me ever. I have no idea why people have issues they claim...not saying that they're wrong, misleading or anything else. Just a "what's the difference"?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Describe action (and intend, so I know what they are actually trying to do) when they do something active.

When they do something like studying or researching, they often just ask a question and I ask for a perception/insight or knowledge check.

 

[Charlaquin]

Whereas it's just never been a problem for me ever. I have no idea why people have issues they claim...not saying that they're wrong, misleading or anything else. Just a "what's the difference"?

I mean, I imagine you at least occasionally have to ask players for clarification about their declared actions. Maybe that’s not a problem for you, and if that’s the case, great. Keep on doing what works well for you. I have found that by asking players to state both goal and approach clearly when they describe an action, there is no need to ask for those clarifications, which I, personally, find preferable.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, I imagine you at least occasionally have to ask players for clarification about their declared actions. Maybe that’s not a problem for you, and if that’s the case, great. Keep on doing what works well for you. I have found that by asking players to state both goal and approach clearly when they describe an action, there is no need to ask for those clarifications, which I, personally, find preferable.

Occasionally I ask for clarification as both a player and DM. It goes both ways. I also don't believe using a different pattern would make a difference. Sometimes the DM is unclear, sometimes the player. Using more words isn't going to change that. It's also something that's quite rare. Over the past month or so I've been paying attention and it happened once with a new player, that includes the weekly game I'm a player in and four game sessions I ran.

So I'll repeat. It's just not an issue. I don't know why it is for others.

 

[CleverNickName]

It's just not an issue. I don't know why it is for others.

Yep, that's every rules argument in a nutshell. Not seeing X, or not understanding how someone else sees X.