D&D 5E Ability Check origins at your table

[Oofta]

I'm not very formal about this, so I voted for all 3. As long as it's reasonably clear what they're doing it's fine. If they roll and it would have been an automatic success, I just let them know that they succeed so there's no real risk to them. I also don't grant automatic successes on describing how your PC completes a task either (unless you bypass the obstacle altogether) so there's never a harm to rolling.

Whatever works for the players and keeps the game moving is fine.

 

[Lanefan]

If I ask for a check the result is binding.

If the player just does it unprompted the result isn't binding on anyone, though some players will voluntarily roll self-binding checks usually to see if their character knows something the player knows but the character might not.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Nothing wrong with any of the three.

The players know their characters and how they would go about things, so why police what skill they decide to use? Any disagreement is inevitably Insight/Perception or Athletics,/Acrobatics, so what's it matter?

 

[overgeeked]

Do you, the DM, give players checks? (perhaps because they've asked to make one for their PC)

Nope.

Do you, the DM, ask players to make checks? (perhaps because of some action their PC is attempting)

Yes, this one. It’s fiction first all the way. Want to search a room? Describe to me what you’re doing and what you’re looking for. If I’m not sure of the outcome based on the description, I’ll ask for a roll.

Do your players announce a skill and roll, thereby making a check that is ungiven or unasked by you, the DM? (perhaps because they feel it is an obvious time to do so)

Players who do this are asked to stop. If they don’t stop they’re told to leave. The only exception is attacks in combat.

 

[Oofta]

...
Players who do this are asked to stop. If they don’t stop they’re told to leave. The only exception is attacks in combat.

So I've always been curious about this. Why do people care? We all know that if I'm trying to open a lock, the DM is going to call for a lockpick check. So ... what's the big deal?

I explained what I do above - I don't really care how people declare or if they wait for me to ask. I'm not going to punish anyone for rolling and honestly I'd rather just keep the game moving so "Lockpick 17" is a shortcut and faster than "DM may I please pick this lock?" as if there's some mystery about what I'm going to say.

 

[overgeeked]

So I've always been curious about this. Why do people care? We all know that if I'm trying to open a lock, the DM is going to call for a lockpick check. So ... what's the big deal?

Because it assumes a string of things that might not be true.

I explained what I do above - I don't really care how people declare or if they wait for me to ask. I'm not going to punish anyone for rolling and honestly I'd rather just keep the game moving so "Lockpick 17" is a shortcut and faster than "DM may I please pick this lock?" as if there's some mystery about what I'm going to say.

Players who assume they have to roll for everything also tend to skip the description. To me, the player describing their action, describing how they interact with the environment and me responding is the game. Tossing the math rocks is not the point. To me, keeping the game in the conversation as much as possible is keeping the game moving. Grabbing dice and throwing them every time you assume I’ll ask for a roll disrupts the flow of the game. The game is the conversation, not the dice or mechanics. It’s only when the outcome of the narration/conversation is not obvious, or the outcome is interesting either way, that the dice come out. Is there someone train in thieves’ tools in the group, and are they signaling they’ll pick the lock, cool…they pick the lock. It’s not interesting enough to bother with a roll.

 

[Oofta]

Because it assumes a string of things that might not be true.

Players who assume they have to roll for everything also tend to skip the description. To me, the player describing their action, describing how they interact with the environment and me responding is the game. Tossing the math rocks is not the point. To me, keeping the game in the conversation as much as possible is keeping the game moving. Grabbing dice and throwing them every time you assume I’ll ask for a roll disrupts the flow of the game. The game is the conversation, not the dice or mechanics.

So if they can describe how they're picking the lock they auto-succeed?

I mean, I guess some of this just goes back to the Role of the Dice they talk about in the DMG.

 

[overgeeked]

So if they can describe how they're picking the lock they auto-succeed?

I mean, I guess some of this just goes back to the Role of the Dice they talk about in the DMG.

It’s only when the outcome of the narration/conversation is not obvious, or the outcome is interesting either way, that the dice come out. Is there someone trained in thieves’ tools in the group, and are they signaling they’ll pick the lock, cool…they pick the lock. It’s not interesting enough to bother slowing the game down for a roll.

 

[Oofta]

It’s only when the outcome of the narration/conversation is not obvious, or the outcome is interesting either way, that the dice come out. Is there someone trained in thieves’ tools in the group, and are they signaling they’ll pick the lock, cool…they pick the lock. It’s not interesting enough to bother slowing the game down for a roll.

For picking locks, according to a quick google search in real life it can take a few seconds to pick a lock or close to an hour. So I'd want a roll to see if they can open it in a few seconds (e.g. as an action/bonus action), if they can't then how long it is going to take. But a high level rogue I'm not even going to ask for a standard lock.

In any case if someone is automatically going to succeed in my game they automatically succeed whether they roll or not. If you run it that they can explain how they're doing something, then I guess I see the point whether or not I happen to run my game that way.

 

[overgeeked]

For picking locks, according to a quick google search in real life it can take a few seconds to pick a lock or close to an hour. So I'd want a roll to see if they can open it in a few seconds (e.g. as an action/bonus action), if they can't then how long it is going to take. But a high level rogue I'm not even going to ask for a standard lock.

Depends on the lock and the picker. Check out the YouTube channel LockPickingLawyer. He busts a lot of myths about lockpicking. He's someone I'd consider an expert. He can pick locks in seconds that people send in and claim are impossible. He's usually done picking the lock before he's done talking about the lock.

In any case if someone is automatically going to succeed in my game they automatically succeed whether they roll or not. If you run it that they can explain how they're doing something, then I guess I see the point whether or not I happen to run my game that way.

Sure. But that can cause problems at the table. It has for me. Because players don't just assume they need to roll, they assume their roll actually matters, so will make a string of assumptions about what the roll means.

When it matters, I'll ask for a roll. Otherwise, describe your actions. This mostly comes up with things like searching rooms rather than picking locks as there's not much interesting description-wise involved. I'm very much an old-school referee in that regard.