D&D 5E Ability Check origins at your table

[Hussar]

It's a distinction that makes a difference...just not to you.

How? How does it make any difference whatsoever?

Again, it's not like we're mind reading here. The player is making their intentions perfectly, crystal clear here. What advantage is there in forcing the players to only describe their actions in a single prescribed way? Which is what @Oofta was saying. It's not a case of preference. It's that you are insisting that players MUST describe their actions in a single defined way, while we're saying, it doesn't really matter how they describe their actions, so long as the intent is clear.

 

[Hussar]

Player, interrupting: "HEY! I didn't say I was going to pick the lock, that roll was for me trying to pry the latch open! Since that failed, I'm going to pick the lock. Sheesh, why are you telling me what my character is doing anyway?"

Yes, because players are just that asinine. Is it really the idea that we are supposed to only call for rolls so we can protect the game from asshats?

I have a better solution. Don't play with asshats.

 

[Hussar]

As you can see from some of the responses, immersive play isn’t everyone’s cuppa.

But, what you're describing isn't even immersive though. All it is is forcing people into predefined text boxes so that they can get on with what is obvious they wanted to do in the first place. They have to say the magic phrase - without referring to the mechanics - in order to get what everyone at the table knows they wanted to do in the first place. And, if there is any doubt, it's generally not that hard to get a short sidebar discussion to clarify exactly what the character means.

IOW, no player rolls an Insight check randomly. No player, talking to an NPC suddenly declares, "Insight 14" with no other information. What typically happens is, "I'm going to make an insight check to see if this guy is shifty or not. Insight 14." The idea that the DM is the sole source of immersion is very much not how it has to be.

 

[Hussar]

I know which part you refer to, as I ran than section just under a year ago and I feel the above is a failure of two things.
(a) That section within the AP could have been better written both from a roleplaying perspective and from a DM advice PoV; and
(b) It does feel the above DM failed himself in that situation. Now we all make mistakes so I'm not bashing the DM here.

To note each of those rocks weighed at minimum 500 pounds, so throwing them as is, was NEVER going to and should NEVER work, especially against your opponents in that scene. It seems that certain information was not communicated to the table.

It feels a shame when someone runs an old AP without doing some internet browsing for ideas and advice because that section with the magical hedge-maze desperately needed it and as always the collective DMs of this world DO provide it.

Meh, girdle of giant strength, Str 21. the character was entirely strong enough to simply huck the boulders. Which is what I said in the initial point.

 

[CleverNickName]

Yes, because players are just that asinine. Is it really the idea that we are supposed to only call for rolls so we can protect the game from asshats?

I have a better solution. Don't play with asshats.

That is really not the idea. The idea is to encourage the players to be more descriptive about their characters and the actions they are attempting. Not because it's pedantic, but because it provides tone and clarity, and it can help avoid arguments.

Don't be so reductive. It doesn't help your argument.

 

[Hussar]

That is really not the idea. The idea is to encourage the players to be more descriptive about their characters and the actions they are attempting. Not because it's pedantic, but because it provides tone and clarity, and it can help avoid arguments.

Don't be so reductive. It doesn't help your argument.

Your first example was of a player who, after making a clear declaration of an action, then plays silly buggers semantic games with the DM declaring that the DM is not interpreting his words correctly and acting like an ass. So, I wouldn't be quite so quick to point fingers at being reductive.

Sure, encourage players to be more descriptive. Fair enough. I'd rather that was done by example, rather than by bludgeoning me over the head because I happen to skip ahead. Remember, there's more than a few people here straight up declaring that a player who asks a question like "can I do X" is flat out wrong. That they should never reference any mechanics.

Please stop trying to paint this as the other side that's being unreasonable here.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I guess I just don't understand the, in my view, needless pedantry here. You know what the player is trying to do. The player knows what he or she wants to do. Does it really matter that they phrase it as a question rather than a statement? As in, do you actually care?

As explained in other posts here, we're looking for players to be actively contributing to the fiction. While "I use [skill]" or "Can I do [X]?" may communicate what the player wants to do, IMO that further adds to the narrative load of the DM. When players are more descriptive, we're achieving a goal of game play at our table which is for everyone at the table to contribute to the shared story we're creating. That's our table. Other tables prefer the DM be the main storyteller and control the narrative. That's a fine, fun way to play, too, but it's not what we're aiming for at our table. Think of it as a spectrum from a DM-less game on one end where the players control the narrative 100% and, at the other end, a game in which is the DM telling their story much like an author with the PCs following a script. The former is an interesting concept while the latter, well, I don't think anyone truly wants that as part of their RPG experience. I think it safe to say that most tables fall somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. Our table just tends to lean a bit more towards the DM-less end of the spectrum in regards to who is responsible for the narration of the story.

Further, players don't need the DM's permission to have their character act/speak/think so, rather than asking questions, the players typically make statements (in 1st or 3rd person) describing what their characters are doing in the scene. That way, as has already been explained, the DM needn't make any assumptions about the stated actions - the player has been reasonably specific about what their character is attempting and the DM can adjudicate accordingly. In this playstyle, as advised by the 5e books, it is the DM who calls for rolls. In fact, in this playstyle, as others have noted, it is best to avoid rolls which come with a meaningful consequence for failure so asking to make one (or just going ahead and making one) is not typically an optimal way to achieve the PC's goal(s).

I have to admit, I would find this level of nit picking just hair tearingly frustrating as a player. It's frustrating enough when players do it, but, when DM's get into this level of pedantry... I just can't understand how that's adding any fun to the game.

I mean, it would seem that your objections are all in how you are imagining it. Your other posts reference:

forcing the players to only describe their actions in a single prescribed way

forcing people into predefined text boxes

They have to say the magic phrase

bludgeoning me over the head because I happen to skip ahead

None of which accurately reflects gameplay at our table, as has been explained in other posts.

Unless, I suppose, you want to define "single prescribed way", "predefined text boxes", "magic phrase", and "bludgeoning me over the head" as excluding options 1 and 3 in the poll. In which case, there's probably a more charitable way to state your objections to a playstyle that clearly works for a non-zero amount of posters here. I'm happy to answer questions but the... caricaturization... does get tiring.

 

[nevin]

Yes, because players are just that asinine. Is it really the idea that we are supposed to only call for rolls so we can protect the game from asshats?

I have a better solution. Don't play with asshats.

I agree with the overall sentiment but lets be fair the percentage of DM asshats far outweigh's the percentage of Asshat players. it's far easier to get a narcissisitic control freak to DM.

 

[Oofta]

I agree with the overall sentiment but lets be fair the percentage of DM asshats far outweigh's the percentage of Asshat players. it's far easier to get a narcissisitic control freak to DM.

Yet another thing, much like most cryptids, that I have never personally experienced. I've had DMs who's styles didn't work for me. DMs that had some restrictions like my current game where feats are banned, sure. But control freak DMs? Nah.

 

[Oofta]

The thing that bugs me about this conversation is the repeated fallacious statements that "You can only interact meaningfully with the world if you do it this way." It's BS. My players interact with the environment plenty, we have a ton of role play. We are not sitting around grunting numbers at each other. Because that seems to always be the fallback for the why. The thing is you don't need that, you can just say "It's a preference thing".

I don't need a formal speech structure in order to have people engage with the world around them. I encourage people to be descriptive, I'm descriptive when I DM. I don't require people to state action instead of asking a question or just declaring their action by giving me the game term and a number. In cases where it matters, where the details are interesting, then we'll get into details. It's about working with the player and letting them engage the way the works best for them.

A good example of a descriptive DM is Matt from Critical Role. Sometimes Matt can get a bit long winded in his descriptions for me even though he's obviously an amazing DM. Yet I don't see any formal structure to how he asks his players to declare their actions, as long as it's clear.

There's a whole spectrum of how descriptive DMs and players are in my experience. For me, it just depends. I find personal interactions more interesting than interactions with the environment. I'll spend a lot more time and effort on characterizations and voices of NPCs and monsters than on the actual environmental details outside of atmosphere. Having to be detailed about exactly where I search I find tedious and not particularly fun.

All of this is preference and it doesn't matter how I ask people to declare their actions. The hyperbole and extremist examples? Doesn't help much on either side. No formalized style is going to fix all the issues people call out. If someone is going to argue that declaring an "I pick the lock and get a 15" means they didn't actually use thieve's tools they're just going to find something else to argue about.