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

[Charlaquin]

But if the player hadn't given a description they wouldn't even have gotten a chance, correct?

What? If the player hadn’t given a description, her character wouldn’t have done anything. Describing actions is how one plays D&D.

Then, if the description is judged adequate it automatically succeeds?

The description is irrelevant. What matters is what the character does, not how the player describes it. If the character had done something that couldn’t fail, then yes, obviously it would succeed. Additionally, if the character failing wouldn’t result in any meaningful cost or consequence, then it would also automatically succeed in my games.

So I'm confused. You have a minimum requirement - a description that gives a chance to succeed. On top of that if the description is judged adequate it automatically succeeds. I'm just trying to phrase it in a way that can be done in a sentence or two, it's not criticism.

“Minimum requirement” implies a prerequisite for a thing you’re trying to do. Checks are things you’re trying to avoid. Success is not a thing that is achieved by “adequate description” (whatever that means), it’s the default result of describing an action. Barring extenuating circumstances, if you say your character does a thing, they just do it. Only when what you say you do carries a risk of failure and stakes might you have to make a roll.

 

[iserith]

So a new player might say something like, "I try to convince the guard to let me into the room by being charming."

That's a sufficient statement of goal ("convince the guard to let me in the room") and approach ("by being charming") in my view and is adjudicated the same way as a player using a lot more words to say the same thing.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

What exactly is a meaningful consequence of failing an Insight check as lie detector? "You don't notice anything" is what actually happens.

The person looks at the character and demands, "What are you doing? Didn't anyone tell you staring is rude?"

In my games, WIS (Insight) is an active skill — that is, it requires the character to ask questions and to lead the conversation. You can't tell if someone is lying until you know what they look like when they are telling the truth, so you need to ask some questions you already know the answer to.

Just staring at a person passively won't get much information beyond "angry" or "bored" or "relaxed" or "glaring at you".

 

[Micah Sweet]

The person looks at the character and demands, "What are you doing? Didn't anyone tell you staring is rude?"

In my games, WIS (Insight) is an active skill — that is, it requires the character to ask questions and to lead the conversation. You can't tell if someone is lying until you know what they look like when they are telling the truth, so you need to ask some questions you already know the answer to.

Just staring at a person passively won't get much information beyond "angry" or "bored" or "relaxed" or "glaring at you".

Cool. Wish people played it that way.

 

[Oofta]

What? If the player hadn’t given a description, her character wouldn’t have done anything. Describing actions is how one plays D&D.

In my game a simple "I check for traps" is adequate. That wasn't adequate in your example. I assume we agree that I am still playing D&D.

The description is irrelevant. What matters is what the character does, not how the player describes it. If the character had done something that couldn’t fail, then yes, obviously it would succeed. Additionally, if the character failing wouldn’t result in any meaningful cost or consequence, then it would also automatically succeed in my games.

“Minimum requirement” implies a prerequisite for a thing you’re trying to do. Checks are things you’re trying to avoid. Success is not a thing that is achieved by “adequate description” (whatever that means), it’s the default result of describing an action. Barring extenuating circumstances, if you say your character does a thing, they just do it. Only when what you say you do carries a risk of failure and stakes might you have to make a roll.

You require a description of the actions PCs make beyond "I check the door for traps". If, in your judgement, there is still a risk of failure you ask for a roll of the dice. Their action as described only met the minimum requirement for potential success. If, in your judgement, there is no chance of failure based on the action they describe they automatically succeed.

I don't see where I'm misrepresenting anything. In the case where you decide a roll is still required, you were not convinced that the action as described was automatically successful.

If it's the word "describe" that your hung up on ... what's an acceptable alternative phrasing? Because while I don't care for the style, there's nothing wrong with it. If I'm describing what people do I want to be accurate, there are many ways of playing the game.

 

[Charlaquin]

In my game a simple "I check for traps" is adequate.

Adequate for what? Again, you seem to be operating under the baseline assumption that making a check is a desirable thing, and that an action description must be adequate for one to be earned. This is not the case in my games.

That wasn't adequate in your example. I assume we agree that I am still playing D&D.

Yes, of course you’re still playing D&D.

You require a description of the actions PCs make beyond "I check the door for traps". If, in your judgement, there is still a risk of failure you ask for a roll of the dice. Their action as described only met the minimum requirement for potential success.

I ask that players clearly state both what they want to accomplish and what their character does to try to accomplish it when they declare an action. That’s not a minimum requirement for potential success; indeed, an action that includes both of those things may or may not have a chance of success, may or may not have a chance of failure, and may or may not have meaningful stakes. That’s why I ask that players include both, because without them, I can’t determine whether or not it can succeed or fail and has consequences. If that’s a “minimum requirement” for anything, it’s a requirement for a declaration of action, not for a chance of success.

If, in your judgement, there is no chance of failure based on the action they describe they automatically succeed.

To be more precise, I base that judgement not on how they describe the action, but on how suited the action is to the goal.

I don't see where I'm misrepresenting anything. In the case where you decide a roll is still required, you were not convinced that the action as described was automatically successful.

It’s not a matter of trying to convince me of something. It’s a matter of trying to select an approach with minimum risk of and/or stakes for failure.

If it's the word "describe" that your hung up on ... what's an acceptable alternative phrasing? Because while I don't care for the style, there's nothing wrong with it. If I'm describing what people do I want to be accurate, there are many ways of playing the game.

The phrasing isn’t what I care about, the framing is. You’re presenting a scenario where the players want to make rolls and to do so they must convince me to let them do so, by describing their actions “adequately” (whatever that means). The reality is simply that we are following the play pattern described in the how to play rules - I describe the environment, the players describe what they want to do, and I determine the results, potentially calling for a die roll to resolve any uncertainty in the results, and then describe the results, restarting the loop in the process.

 

[Pedantic]

The phrasing isn’t what I care about, the framing is. You’re presenting a scenario where the players want to make rolls and to do so they must convince me to let them do so, by describing their actions “adequately” (whatever that means). The reality is simply that we are following the play pattern described in the how to play rules - I describe the environment, the players describe what they want to do, and I determine the results, potentially calling for a die roll to resolve any uncertainty in the results, and then describe the results, restarting the loop in the process.

This is absolutely the preferred loop I'd like to be engaged in, I just don't think 5e has sufficient specified actions to do so, unless I start recording what I've made them roll for historically and give it back them as a reference document.

Which, now that I'm considering it, is a great idea to get a handle on building out a reasonably complete skill system eventually. Right now, players aren't really stringing together known actions, they're fishing for my approval with improv prompts.

 

[Oofta]

Adequate for what? Again, you seem to be operating under the baseline assumption that making a check is a desirable thing, and that an action description must be adequate for one to be earned. This is not the case in my games.

Yes, of course you’re still playing D&D.

I ask that players clearly state both what they want to accomplish and what their character does to try to accomplish it when they declare an action. That’s not a minimum requirement for potential success; indeed, an action that includes both of those things may or may not have a chance of success, may or may not have a chance of failure, and may or may not have meaningful stakes. That’s why I ask that players include both, because without them, I can’t determine whether or not it can succeed or fail and has consequences. If that’s a “minimum requirement” for anything, it’s a requirement for a declaration of action, not for a chance of success.

I was trying to condense it down to less than a paragraph because I will never remember that.

To be more precise, I base that judgement not on how they describe the action, but on how suited the action is to the goal.

It’s not a matter of trying to convince me of something. It’s a matter of trying to select an approach with minimum risk of and/or stakes for failure.

You admit in your example that you don't know how to find a trap. Someone attempting to find a trap must come up with a solution, an action or series of actions, that makes sense to you. Then they have to describe how they implement their plan. They are convincing you that their plan will work.

The phrasing isn’t what I care about, the framing is. You’re presenting a scenario where the players want to make rolls and to do so they must convince me to let them do so, by describing their actions “adequately” (whatever that means). The reality is simply that we are following the play pattern described in the how to play rules - I describe the environment, the players describe what they want to do, and I determine the results, potentially calling for a die roll to resolve any uncertainty in the results, and then describe the results, restarting the loop in the process.

I have never said anything on this thread about the importance of phrasing. I really don't understand why you are so sensitive about people describing how you play without regurgitating your exact words.

I disagree that the rules are so strict or, for that matter, designed to be strictly followed that your method is what is spelled out in the book. I don't really care why you do it. I'm just trying to describe an alternative approach in a sentence or two.

One more try: You require that the player clearly states what their character is trying to do. In some cases you decide their actions will have no chance of failure, in other cases you will ask for a check. Yes? No?

 

[Charlaquin]

This is absolutely the preferred loop I'd like to be engaged in, I just don't think 5e has sufficient specified actions to do so, unless I start recording what I've made them roll for historically and give it back them as a reference document.

Huh? 5e (and, we’ll, any TTRPG, really) has infinitely many possible actions. The players can literally attempt anything. That’s the greatest strength of the medium in my opinion.

Which, now that I'm considering it, is a great idea to get a handle on building out a reasonably complete skill system eventually. Right now, players aren't really stringing together known actions, they're fishing for my approval with improv prompts.

I don’t understand what you mean by “known actions.” But, my advice would be to ask them to clearly state both what they want to accomplish and what their character does in the fictional world to try to achieve that desired outcome. Then it’s just a matter of imagining the character(s) in the world, performing that action, to determine if it could achieve the desired result, if it could fail to do so, and it failing to do so would have some sort of cost or consequence, and call for a check if (and only if) all three are true.

 

[Charlaquin]

I disagree that the rules are so strict or, for that matter, designed to be strictly followed that your method is what is spelled out in the book. I don't really care why you do it. I'm just trying to describe an alternative approach in a sentence or two.

I’m not making any claims about how “strictly” the rules are meant to be followed or whatever. I’m saying that if you want a succinct and accurate way to describe what goes on at my games, as you claim to want, then the description of the basic gameplay loop in the how to play section of the rules does so perfectly.

One more try: You require that the player clearly states what their character is trying to do. In some cases you decide their actions will have no chance of failure, in other cases you will ask for a check. Yes? No?

I would say “determine” rather than “decide,” but otherwise, yes.