D&D 5E Ability Check origins at your table

[el-remmen]

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?

Of course they are are making an informed choice. It is a choice about the existing in a world with traps and monsters and unstable old dungeon walls, and so on. Aren’t they informed about the genre of game and setting? The details of the mechanics of specifically picking the lock are beside the point.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I had more then one teacher that if me or another student would say "I have a question to axe" or "Can I axe you a question" would make us restate it as "I have a question to ask" or "Can I ask you a question" before we could move forward. I also had way too many teachers that would say "aint isn't a word" even when we proved them wrong by finding it in dictionaries and giving full definitions.

the teacher understood what the request or statement was, they just didn't like the words used to make it.

Yeah, that's no good. Especially from an authority figure.

I feel lik you and others here are doing the same.

We're not, but I appreciate you saying that as it seems something is not coming through clear in the translation.

why? "I want to look for more detail" and "I use perception" will almost always mean the same thing. The times they don't you can take in the context and figure it out. SO yeah if 100 time someone calls for a skill by name and 10 of those times you need to ask for clarity that makes sense to me, but if it's 50 times, or 80 times or all 100 times that seems like it is not just you needing clarity but you policing what people are saying and how.

Because, at our table, we want to know what your character is doing in the scene that is before us.

I am trying, but to be perfectly honest, I can't even imagine having fun at a table and making friends when I am told "No, you have to say that a different way"

Maybe it is not for you and that's ok.

But let's pretend you were playing with us. If you said "I use Perception" at our table, the DM would not be rude. They'd ask you to be more specific based on what was just described in the fiction. They'd want you to interact with the fictional scene - what is your character trying to accomplish and how are they going about it - not just use a standard action of "Perception". So, if the DM just described a room with a rug, a tapestry, a desk, and a door, the party might split up to check out each of those things. Perhaps your character would do something like: "I want a closer look at the rug. I'm going to try to lift up an edge with my sword to see if there's anything under it." Once the other players had a chance to chime in with what their characters were doing in the scene, the DM would resolve each action.

 

[AmandaBarbarian]

That is not the distinction being sought. "I walk up to the chest, stay a foot away from it, do not touch it, and look for discoloration or a sheen that indicates there could be a contact poison. Next I will look for areas on the chest that it looks like poison needles could jab out from." allows the DM to adjudicate whether the player walks right onto the illusion covering the pit trap in front of the chest.

never in the last few years that I have been playing have I heard a player say ANYTHING like that, and not even in a 'old story' from the others.

 

[AmandaBarbarian]

Yeah, that's no good. Especially from an authority figure.

yeah it is pretty bad, I didn't know at 8 how bad but now I do.

We're not, but I appreciate you saying that as it seems something is not coming through clear in the translation.

I am really trying but some how it just doesn't even feel like D&D to me what you are explaining.

Maybe it is not for you and that's ok.

I am starting to think we don't even all play the same game.

But let's pretend you were playing with us. If you said "I use Perception" at our table, the DM would not be rude. They'd ask you to be more specific based on what was just described in the fiction. They'd want you to interact with the fictional scene - what is your character trying to accomplish and how are they going about it - not just use a standard action of "Perception". So, if the DM just described a room with a rug, a tapestry, a desk, and a door, the party might split up to check out each of those things. Perhaps your character would do something like: "I want a closer look at the rug. I'm going to try to lift up an edge with my sword to see if there's anything under it." Once the other players had a chance to chime in with what their characters were doing in the scene, the DM would resolve each action.

See this is what I mean, I can see a discussion around "Is that perception, investigate, or insight" but not one where I would have to say how and where I am looking.

 

[Voadam]

I am floored by this one. So a player that is more social and more able to talk at the table will always have the advantage over a shy player?

Generally I feel that talking is something anyone, even shy and not as social players, can do and is part of the immersive fun of the game.

Most social interactions in game anyway are just social interactions. When you are checking in with your patron and passing on information you have learned there is often little need for a persuasion, bluff, or intimidate check.

 

[el-remmen]

never in the last few years that I have been playing have I heard a player say ANYTHING like that, and not even in a 'old story' from the others.

I think it is important to keep in mind that despite what it can seem like on this forum where ideas move toward polarized extremes, in reality there is a wide spectrum of ideas of how this kind of interaction with the scene/setting works. Most people fall along the middle and/or actually are at different places on that spectrum at different times and situations.

 

[el-remmen]

I am starting to think we don't even all play the same game.

I frequently feel way when I hear other people’s styles and preferences.

 

[AmandaBarbarian]

Generally I feel that talking is something anyone, even shy and not as social players, can do and is part of the immersive fun of the game.

oh wow, I hope you never DM for someone really shy then.

Most social interactions in game anyway are just social interactions. When you are checking in with your patron and passing on information you have learned there is often little need for a persuasion, bluff, or intimidate check.

wait, so you don't have drawn out nights where everything is social interactions? You don't have to ever play court intrigue? I guess if you just skip 1/3 the game that makes sense.

 

[AmandaBarbarian]

I think it is important to keep in mind that despite what it can seem like on this forum where ideas move toward polarized extremes, in reality there is a wide spectrum of ideas of how this kind of interaction with the scene/setting works. Most people fall along the middle and/or actually are at different places on that spectrum at different times and situations.

I lurked here for a while and just glazed over arguments like this, but now that I joined I am starting to realize how the extremes have been pushed more and more extreme.

 

[Voadam]

never in the last few years that I have been playing have I heard a player say ANYTHING like that, and not even in a 'old story' from the others.

Sure, but "I check the chest for traps" will lead to different results than "I check the fireplace".

Both are more specific than "I make another perception check" in a room described as having a bed, a closet, a fireplace, and a chest.