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

[EzekielRaiden]

That has gameplay implications though, because now you're disincentivizing making checks in the first place. I don't necessarily mind more extreme results than "the status quo prevails" for player actions, but to the extent possible in a given situation, that's precisely the sort of thing I'd want to be knowable to players ahead of time. If every failed check is supposed to affect something I care about roughly equally negatively, what is the reason to pursue any particular course of action outside of "whatever I'm most likely to succeed at?"

If anything, the best play would be to find some way to lie about your goals, while taking actions that push them obliquely.

Well, keep in mind, I'm playing DW here, so (a) a failed roll still means things advance, just not necessarily in the preferred direction, (b) I have been very clear with my players that I don't have any interest in screwing them over, and (c) things like "let it ride" and such mean that checks are not really as common as they are in most D&D versions.

I still think that it is better to give interesting consequences rather than asking for a Perception check and then so obviously saying "you see nothing." You'd want mild negative consequences in most cases in D&D, because checks come up a lot and, as you say, were "roughly equally negative," that would be horrendously punishing.

 

[Charlaquin]

I can only go by what people say. And lots of people today talk about how absolutely essential illusionism, quantum ogres, and "invisible" railroading are for gaming. To the point that I have been point-blank told by at least two different people, on this very forum, that literally all DMs use illusionism, literally all the time, and that it's a profound but unavoidable sadness when the illusion finally breaks and players realize they've been led around by the nose the whole time. (Different phrasing from each person, of course, but that was the gist.)

Illusionism and participationism are certainly popular techniques. I don’t think they’re mutually exclusive with letting the players drive the narrative, nor that letting the players drive the narrative is unpopular. At any rate, I wouldn’t take what you see people say here as an indication of the general D&D community’s preferences.

 

[Umbran]

Okay. I see a rising tide of viking hat DMs and people insisting on DMing tools which inherently take agency away from players.

Hold that thought...

What else am I supposed to think?

Well, first - that personal experience is not a great basis.

Rhetorical questions to demonstrate the point follow: You, personally, see? See? Like, personally observe, in the room with as they play? How many? Is it a number of GMs large enough to be indicative of the hundreds of thousands of tables in play? Is it a truly random sample, or are you seeing them in particular populations that are apt to be biased in some way (like your personal gaming social circles, or on messageboards)? Exactly how to you measure the horns on the "Viking hat", or the tide of them, anyway? How do you record them to eliminate your own perception biases?....

Next, you are well aware of the tendency for discussion on messageboards to be far more polarized and strict than is seen in actual play, right? The confrontational dynamics of discussion here tends to introduce bias in presentation and interpretation.

Considering those, then, maybe (and this is just a suggestion) you'd do well to think that we, as individuals and as a community, are not positioned to tell what is going on in the gaming world as a whole. And maybe asserting such judgements as a discussion technique is a flawed conversational approach.

But overall, maybe not worrying so much about how much (as if we can measure amounts of) agency folks not at your table have would be a good idea. What matters is not how much agency they have, but whether they enjoy their games.

 

[Oofta]

I'm assuming most DMs have fallen back on illusionism at one time or another. Typically something along the lines of a semi-panicked response because the players did something totally out of left field and it's been a long week and you just don't have the mental reserves to improvise something. Or perhaps as a DM you've backed yourself into a corner and really can't think of out of it. DMs aren't perfect after all.

But this whole topic tends to be a rabbit hole of philosophical debate. Like ... is it really a choice if you can go left or right but there's no knowledge behind that choice? If you have to have knowledge to make a choice, how much?

I try to avoid illusionism myself - I sketch out an extra encounter or three for a sessions and don't think in terms of plots or story lines and instead focus on actors, their motivations and goals. I don't think it's inherently wrong unless it's overused such as in Mass Effect 3 where nothing you had done up until the final scenes made any difference. But everyone knows that if you're playing Curse of Strahd that the ultimate goal players will actually want is to take out Mr. Toothy in the end which may require some sleight of hand by the DM.

 

[Hriston]

It's pretty much a direct quote from this post. It wasn't on this thread, this topic had been trending for a while.

And, as always, there's nothing wrong with this. It's just not something I would do and have never cared for in any edition. The basic concepts go pretty much back to the beginning of the game.

Spoiler: The exact text

One time I had a player declare that she wanted to check a door for traps. I responded “I’m hearing that you want to find out if the door is trapped; what does your character do to try and find that out?” She initially said “something my character who’s trained in perception and investigation would think of that I can’t?” to which I said, “I understand you’re not an expert in trapfinding; neither am I. I just need to know what your character is doing in the world of the game so I can determine if it could succeed, if it could fail, and if there are any potential consequences for failing. Just go with something that seems reasonable to you, and I will do my best to interpret that generously.” She said she gave the door and the seams around it a thorough visual inspection, and I determined that this would have a chance of resulting in her seeing through the seam at the top that there was a lever, which would trigger a bell to ring when the door opened. I called for a check, she passed, and saw the lever. The party then went on to try to disarm this trap by wedging something (I no longer remember what, maybe it was a dagger or something) through the seam to hold the lever in place while they opened the door, which I determined would succeed without need of a roll. From that point on, the player in this exchange has consistently been one of the most creative players at my table when it comes to coming up with novel approaches to actions that often result in her succeeding at things without needing to roll.

Except it’s not "pretty much a direct quote”. In @Charlaquin's description of her game, the player doesn’t say she wants to “qualify for” or “get” a check. She says she wants to find out if the door is trapped. That’s a statement of her character’s intention and has nothing to do with the player wanting to roll a die. What the player wants is for the DM to reveal if there is any secret information in her notes about the door being trapped. Now since this is hidden information and wasn’t part of the DM’s initial description of the environment because it isn’t readily apparent to observers as the situation is conceived by the DM, a change in the fictional situation needs to be imagined by the table to explain how that information becomes available to the character for it to be revealed. One way for this to happen is for the player to describe what their character does in the fiction to change the situation to one in which more information might be revealed. This is why the player in the example describes her character looking into the gap around the door which it might reasonably be assumed had not previously been inspected and so may contain secrets of the kind the player wishes to discover. It’s now up to the DM to re-describe the environment taking into account this change, and in this case, without getting into the details of the resolution process, it is determined that yes, the door gap does indeed contain the information the player desires and so the player’s goal is achieved and new fiction can now be described including the existence of an alarm bell that will trigger if the door is opened. The reason I’m skipping over the check is it’s a superfluous part of the example. The player's goal in describing her character's action is to get the DM to describe more stuff about the environment. The check is an "extra" bit the DM tacked on to the process to help determine success. It's not the point.

Did I say the options were not represented on the poll?

No, I was using the poll options to mirror back what I understood you to be saying. Apologies if that caused any confusion.

 

[jgsugden]

I initially avoided this thread - but I am curious: Is anyone consistently using one of these options at any table where they play? I get it all as a DM, and I do it all as a player. The only answer I could give is other because I use all of them, and none of them are used infrequently.

Sometimes as a player I say, "I want to sneak down the hall slowly and quietly, but being careful to look for traps, especially on the floor."

Sometimes I say, "I'm going to stealth down the hallway, but I want to be careful. Should I roll perceeption, too?"

Sometimes I roll a die and then say, "I started to stealth down the hallway, but tripped on my shoes."

It depends upon my relationship with the players, with the DM, and the overall tone at the time I'm rolling. If there is intensity, I don't want to ruin it with a drawn out explanation. If there is a spooky vibe I want to draw things out to create tension.

As a DM I am less reactive to the tone around me and instead spend more time setting tone. To that end, the way I interact with players, and how we ask for rolls, is driven by where I want to lead the PCs and how I want them to feel at the moment.

Sometimes I'll pause and - out of nopwhere - turn to one player and say, "Roll a d20." No explantion. No context. Just something that makes them wonder what the heck is going on and puts them on their heels.

Sometimes I'll tell them, "The Thunderwave smashes apart the wagon you're hiding behind. I'm going to need you to roll another trained dexterity roll to stay hidden behind it as it is blasted around."

Sometimes I'll say, "The wagon in front of you is hit by the thunderwave and smashes apart into loose lumber. What is your first thought as you see it shattering before you?"

Sometimes I say, "Roger, put your pants back on. I'm not going to tell you again. And, yes, you should see a doctor - that thing is moving by itself."

 

[Oofta]

I initially avoided this thread - but I am curious: Is anyone consistently using one of these options at any table where they play? I get it all as a DM, and I do it all as a player. The only answer I could give is other because I use all of them, and none of them are used infrequently.

Sometimes as a player I say, "I want to sneak down the hall slowly and quietly, but being careful to look for traps, especially on the floor."

Sometimes I say, "I'm going to stealth down the hallway, but I want to be careful. Should I roll perceeption, too?"

Sometimes I roll a die and then say, "I started to stealth down the hallway, but tripped on my shoes."

It depends upon my relationship with the players, with the DM, and the overall tone at the time I'm rolling. If there is intensity, I don't want to ruin it with a drawn out explanation. If there is a spooky vibe I want to draw things out to create tension.

As a DM I am less reactive to the tone around me and instead spend more time setting tone. To that end, the way I interact with players, and how we ask for rolls, is driven by where I want to lead the PCs and how I want them to feel at the moment.

Sometimes I'll pause and - out of nopwhere - turn to one player and say, "Roll a d20." No explantion. No context. Just something that makes them wonder what the heck is going on and puts them on their heels.

Sometimes I'll tell them, "The Thunderwave smashes apart the wagon you're hiding behind. I'm going to need you to roll another trained dexterity roll to stay hidden behind it as it is blasted around."

Sometimes I'll say, "The wagon in front of you is hit by the thunderwave and smashes apart into loose lumber. What is your first thought as you see it shattering before you?"

Sometimes I say, "Roger, put your pants back on. I'm not going to tell you again. And, yes, you should see a doctor - that thing is moving by itself."

I've never run, played in, or seen a game that strictly uses one style. For example I generally rely on a dice roll to resolve a skill check and don't really care about details of how the check is accomplished, although the player may add something or I might just for flair. But even then most of the time I require people to either speak in character or at least explain what they are saying for persuasion and intimidation checks.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course.

 

[Oofta]

Except it’s not "pretty much a direct quote”. In @Charlaquin’s description of her game, the player doesn’t say she wants to “qualify for” or “get” a check. She says she wants to find out if the door is trapped. That’s a statement of her character’s intention and has nothing to do with the player wanting to roll a die. What the player wants is for the DM to reveal if there is any secret information in her notes about the door being trapped. Now since this is hidden information and wasn’t part of the DM’s initial description of the environment because it isn’t readily apparent to observers as the situation is conceived by the DM, a change in the fictional situation needs to be imagined by the table to explain how that information becomes available to the character for it to be revealed. One way for this to happen is for the player to describe what their character does in the fiction to change the situation to one in which more information might be revealed. This is why the player in the example describes her character looking into the gap around the door which it might reasonably be assumed had not previously been inspected and so may contain secrets of the kind the player wishes to discover. It’s now up to the DM to re-describe the environment taking into account this change, and in this case, without getting into the details of the resolution process, it is determined that yes, the door gap does indeed contain the information the player desires and so the player’s goal is achieved and new fiction can now be described including the existence of an alarm bell that will trigger if the door is opened. The reason I’m skipping over the check is it’s a superfluous part of the example. The player's goal in describing her character's action is to get the DM to describe more stuff about the environment. The check is an "extra" bit the DM tacked on to the process to help determine success. It's not the point.


No, I was using the poll options to mirror back what I understood you to be saying. Apologies if that caused any confusion.

I clarified with @Charlaquin a short version of what they do:
They require that the player clearly states what their character is trying to do. In some cases you determine their actions will have no chance of failure, in other cases they will ask for a check.

My short take on this:
I require an appropriate check. People can add description but it doesn't change the target DC, the abilities and training of the PC is what matters. For persuasion and intimidation I prefer speaking in person but need to at least know what they say which can modify the target DC. Otherwise I don't care how they declare their action.

As far as I'm concerned, unless Charlaquin has a correction that's pretty much all I have to add.

 

[Charlaquin]

I clarified with @Charlaquin a short version of what they do:
They require that the player clearly states what their character is trying to do. In some cases you determine their actions will have no chance of failure, in other cases they will ask for a check.

My short take on this:
I require an appropriate check. People can add description but it doesn't change the target DC, the abilities and training of the PC is what matters. For persuasion and intimidation I prefer speaking in person but need to at least know what they say which can modify the target DC. Otherwise I don't care how they declare their action.

As far as I'm concerned, unless Charlaquin has a correction that's pretty much all I have to add.

Yeah, I think this is a reasonable summary. @Hriston ’s explanation you responded to is more thorough and in that way more accurate, but this version suffices to express it in brief.

 

[Lanefan]

As a DM I am less reactive to the tone around me and instead spend more time setting tone. To that end, the way I interact with players, and how we ask for rolls, is driven by where I want to lead the PCs and how I want them to feel at the moment.

Sometimes I'll pause and - out of nopwhere - turn to one player and say, "Roll a d20." No explantion. No context. Just something that makes them wonder what the heck is going on and puts them on their heels.

I do this as well, though some here in the forum might flay you for it.

I'll also do this to disguise "real" rolls. For example if something is trying to affect a character but the rest of the PCs might not know who's being targeted, I'll get three players to roll but only pay attention to the roll I really need.