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

[Umbran]

I wonder where all these reasonable adults are you seem to think are out there. They don’t seem to post much anywhere on the internet.

I have a table full of these reasonable people. I've had tables with reasonable teens, too. They don't post on social media to discuss RPGs, you're correct on that. I do recall seeing such behaviors in players... back when I was playing in Junior High School.

But, it still remains - there's a selection process here. If you don't select against a particular behavior, you'll probably see that behavior.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Other than persuasion or intimidation checks (where I want to know what is being said most of the time), I don't ask for any details and my games work just fine, thanks. I'd say that 99% of the time, if not more, I don't have to ask for clarification because "I check for traps" or similar is all that's necessary. Not just for me, but for any game I've ever played in or seen. No need to throw in the unwanted "advice". We all have preferences, your preference does not make your style of play superior.

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

We're obviously pretty far apart on the spectrum of Role of the Dice as the DMG. I just want to be sure that when this topic inevitably comes up again I can describe what others do.

 

[Charlaquin]

Other than persuasion or intimidation checks (where I want to know what is being said most of the time), I don't ask for any details and my games work just fine, thanks.

I never said otherwise.

I'd say that 99% of the time, if not more, I don't have to ask for clarification because "I check for traps" or similar is all that's necessary. Not just for me, but for any game I've ever played in or seen. No need to throw in the unwanted "advice". We all have preferences, your preference does not make your style of play superior.

Dude, you’re the one who directly quoted me (though without using the quote function or tagging me, so someone else had to tell me you were talking about it), misrepresenting the way gameplay works at my table. I have not offered you any advice or made any comments about your gameplay style whatsoever, let alone claimed mine was superior in any way. I’m just clarifying that the way you framed it does not reflect gameplay at my table. Your obsession with this is downright creepy.

We're obviously pretty far apart on the spectrum of Role of the Dice as the DMG. I just want to be sure that when this topic inevitably comes up again I can describe what others do.

And I have in turn told you how you can more accurately describe what I do. So, can we move on now, or do you want to ask the exact same questions you do every time this subject comes up twelve more times first?

 

[Lanefan]

Your framing implies that “a chance” is a desirable thing, which is being gated behind the requirement of “giving a description that satisfies me.”

A chance is a desirable thing when the alternative is no chance, and I suspect that's where some disconnect is happening here.

Even though you're not saying it this way, it seems your posts are being interpreted along the lines of "if via their detailed description they don't talk me into giving them a roll, and thus a chance, they won't have a chance at all".

And in that case yes, you allowing a roll is what the player is trying to achieve because no roll means failure.

This is misrepresenting the reality of the gameplay at my table, in which “a chance” is an undesirable thing, which you might have to risk taking, if you can’t devise a way of trying to accomplish your goals that could circumvent it.

So what you're saying is that a roll is the default and from there they can with a detailed description etc. maybe turn that into auto-success, is that right?

Furthermore, the way to avoid a check is not to describe your action in any particular way, but to devise an action that achieves what you want to happen without significant risk. How exactly you describe that action is immaterial.

Well that almost goes without saying - if there's a choice between a risky way and a risk-free way of accomplishing the same thing, the risk-free way simply makes sense.

But let's for these purposes assume the risk is what it is and can't be mitigated. In that case, does - or can - their degree of detail in their action declaration/description change their odds of success?

 

[Lanefan]

What if the player is not that great at being a charming con artist or a silver-tongued bard, and yet they are playing a character who is? How do you handle that?

I make some allowances for the player but also expect the player to actively try to improve that element of their play as time goes on.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

That carries a high risk, IMO, of over-codifying it and thus taking away a lot of the outside-the-box creative-thinking element that makes RPG play different from pretty much any other game.

Personally I'd rather go in the opposite direction - more improv-like give and take between the players and the DM rather than less.

 

[Charlaquin]

A chance is a desirable thing when the alternative is no chance, and I suspect that's where some disconnect is happening here.

But the alternative is not no chance. The alternative is nothing happens, because your character has yet to actually do anything, because you haven’t declared any action.

Even though you're not saying it this way, it seems your posts are being interpreted along the lines of "if via their detailed description they don't talk me into giving them a roll, and thus a chance, they won't have a chance at all".

And in that case yes, you allowing a roll is what the player is trying to achieve because no roll means failure.

Right, which is why I say this framing is misleading, because that doesn’t accurately reflect gameplay at my table, at all.

So what you're saying is that a roll is the default and from there they can with a detailed description etc. maybe turn that into auto-success, is that right?

No. I’m saying (literally, I said these exact words) 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.

Well that almost goes without saying - if there's a choice between a risky way and a risk-free way of accomplishing the same thing, the risk-free way simply makes sense.

Indeed, it ought to go without saying, because I’m not saying anything particularly outlandish or revolutionary here. I’m just saying the players describe what they want to do and I determine the results, potentially calling for a die roll to resolve uncertainty, and then describing the results. Just like what the “how to play” rules say.

But let's for these purposes assume the risk is what it is and can't be mitigated. In that case, does - or can - their degree of detail in their action declaration/description change their odds of success?

That’s a very strange assumption to make in my opinion; in a game where the premise is that the players can do anything they can imagine (obviously within the limits of what’s physically possible for their characters to do), I don’t think it’s ever safe to assume that the players couldn’t come up with a way for their characters to go about trying to achieve their goals that would mitigate the risk. Even if I can’t imagine a way, players can often surprise you with their creative ideas.

Anyway, that objection aside, assuming for the sake of argument that the player for some reason can’t come up with an approach that has little or no risk (I mean, adventuring is after all a pretty risky endeavor)? No, the degree of detail with which they describe their action has absolutely no effect on its possible outcomes. I care about what the character is doing, not how the player describes that action.

A player does have to describe the action with enough specificity for me to understand what their character is actually doing, otherwise I can’t determine what the potential outcomes might be, and I think this may be what some people object to. They prefer to leave the fictional action somewhat abstract, roll a die to determine success or failure (and sometimes degree of success), and then retroactively fill in the details of the action in a way that makes sense with the results the die indicated. Whereas I prefer for the action to be specified, so I can use the logic of the fiction as the primary determining factor of success or failure, and only call for a die roll when the outcome is still uncertain.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Uploads of your sessions will give everyone much better ideas how you run your games.

 

[Yaarel]

I wanted to reformulate the question asked in this thread because it seems to presuppose an ability check whereas many player action declarations are resolved without one.

The options are pretty much what it says in the poll. Here's a slightly expanded version of the list of responses, some of which I had to abbreviate because they were too long to fit in the poll itself:

• The player describes their character’s action and intention, states which ability they use (and/or skill, if appropriate), and rolls a check to resolve.
• The player describes their character’s action and intention, and the DM decides whether an ability check is needed to resolve.
• The player describes their character’s action only, states which ability they use (and/or skill, if appropriate), and rolls a check to resolve.
• The player describes their character’s action only, and the DM decides whether an ability check is needed to resolve.
• The player describes their character’s intention only, states which ability they use (and/or skill, if appropriate), and rolls a check to resolve.
• The player describes their character’s intention only, and the DM decides whether an ability check is needed to resolve.
• The player states which ability they use (and/or skill, if appropriate), and rolls a check to resolve.
• The player asks a question, and the DM assumes an action the character takes to find out the answer and decides whether an ability check is needed to resolve.

You can vote for as many as you want. If I've missed any of the ways your group handles non-attack action declarations, choose "Other" and post about it in the thread.

Nice poll.

It looks like it is detailed enough to call attention to a specific nuance:

"Player describes action and intention, and DM decides whether an ability check is needed to resolve."

Which is how I DM as well.

Either action or intention are fine, but both help the narrative be clearer. I prefer both together, but one might imply the other clearly enough.

Then the DM decides how plausible the action and intention are. Yes/No/Roll.

 

[Yaarel]

Players have a voice in whether a roll is warranted or not, but in 99%+ of cases it should be obvious that something requires rolling. We communicate and build a serious, real consensus and then move on with our game.

Yeah, D&D is a collaborative storytelling game.

That said, the DM is often hiding information from the players, and the players might not yet discover all of the factors in play.

So often enough, it needs to be the DM who makes the judgment call about how plausible a player narrative sounds.

But normally the DM is "responding" to the player actions. In this sense, it is the players who cause the story to happen, and certainly the players shape whatever happens, and even choose whether a story happens or not, by remaining somewhere or going somewhere else instead.

Players have much power in the D&D storytelling game.