D&D 5E Are there actions not covered under a skill?

[Reynard]

That does sound frustrating. Communication is important, and lapses are both easy and easy to miss; hence, my feelings about benefit of the doubt. As a player, I try to extend that courtesy to whoever is GMing, but that can be hard if they run as counter to my preferences and expectations as you describe.

It definitely sounds like a communication issue. Each person in that scenario was making assumptions about the other person's play style. That was the source of the problem, not that either of them preferred the style they did.

 

[Oofta]

One of the perceived advantages of the style being argued is that it encourages paying attention to the DM’s description of the environment. Nothing is just set dressing, everything is an intractable feature of the environment, and may contain valuable context clues.


Yeah, over reliance on maps can be a problem in this way. As a DM, it is important not to let maps become a replacement for sufficient description of the environment.


And again, this is why proper use of telegraphing is important.

It's the whole "telegraphing" thing that I just don't get.

But let's say I'm describing someone's living quarters/small apartment. What we would consider a studio apartment would be pretty typical living arrangement for many people in my campaign world.

So if I'm describing it, it's going to have what I would consider standard set dressing. Bed, maybe a dresser, wardrobe along with a small desk and chair. Maybe another couple of pieces of furniture and a small stove. Couple of pictures on the wall, probably a cupboard. Likely even a little storage cubby up high. I probably forget to mention the chamber pot but it's probably in there too.

Why all that? Because it's what I would think would be reasonable for the person living there. I'm describing someone with a fair number of possessions but not fabulously wealthy. It's set dressing that sets the mood.

It's never just going to be a bureau with a single drawer (which, yes, is an exaggeration).

I can't think of any logical reason for any particular piece of furniture or location to stand out short of just putting a big neon sign saying "search here" pointed at the futon.

 

[iserith]

This is what I refer to when I say pixelbitching. It isn't fun and doesn't have a positive effect on the game.

"Pixelbitching" is taking the reasonable specificity outlined in the rules, which ultimately makes it easier for the DM to adjudicate not harder, to an unreasonable place. It's not the same thing.

"By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world." - DMG, p. 236-237. Add to this the PHB, p. 178 sidebar on "Finding a Hidden Object," plus "How to Play" (PHB, p. 6) and "Using Ability Scores" (DMG, p. 237). These sections taken as a whole tell us what to do and it isn't "pixelbitching."

 

[Reynard]

I can't think of any logical reason for any particular piece of furniture or location to stand out short of just putting a big neon sign saying "search here" pointed at the futon.

I think this is important. Generally speaking, I try and use broad description and then drill down in response to questions.
"You walk into what looks like a bedroom. Or it was. Now the furniture is all moldering and there are cobwebs obscuring the walls." From there, players can ask questions about exact furnishings. What I want to avoid is glossing over everything EXCEPT the one dresser where the treasure is hidden.

 

[Reynard]

"Pixelbitching" is taking the reasonable specificity outlined in the rules, which ultimately makes it easier for the DM to adjudicate not harder, to an unreasonable place. It's not the same thing.

"By balancing the use of dice against deciding on success, you can encourage your players to strike a balance between relying on their bonuses and abilities and paying attention to the game and immersing themselves in its world." - DMG, p. 236-237. Add to this the PHB, p. 178 sidebar on "Finding a Hidden Object," plus "How to Play" (PHB, p. 6) and "Using Ability Scores" (DMG, p. 237). These sections taken as a whole tell us what to do and it isn't "pixelbitching."

Why are you quoting the rule book? It's not relevant. You keep acting like the things written in there are sacrosanct. They are not. The book actually tells you they are not. You can't use them as a cudgel to prove you are doing it right. There is no right.

 

[iserith]

Why are you quoting the rule book? It's not relevant. You keep acting like the things written in there are sacrosanct. They are not. The book actually tells you they are not. You can't use them as a cudgel to prove you are doing it right. There is no right.

What makes you think I am using them as a "cudgel?" I'm showing that the game doesn't support the "pixelbitching" you say you don't find fun, if the DM is following the standard adjudication process. Which I do.

 

[jasper]

.....

Also, I gather that some folks in this thread have never lost their keys. If you are one of those people, let me explain it: You were in the kitchen. You had your keys. You know both of these things to be true. But now you don't have your keys. WTF? How is that possible? You search the kitchen. No keys. You go to the living room. No keys. You go to the bedroom. Nope. You check the damn bathroom even though there's no goddamn reason they would be there. Nada. Frustrated, you go back into the kitchen. There they are. Right next to your wallet. What?

.....

See what happens when you tick off the car key gnomes!

 

[Reynard]

See what happens when you tick off the car key gnomes!

Just one more reason to hate gnomes...

 

[Charlaquin]

It definitely sounds like a communication issue. Each person in that scenario was making assumptions about the other person's play style. That was the source of the problem, not that either of them preferred the style they did.

Actually, we discussed play styles before I joined the game. I had told him up-front that I prefer to describe what my character does in in-fiction terms and make checks when asked to do so by the DM, and he agreed that was fine, but that he was also fine with players simply saying they want to make a check. I didn’t think he meant “sometimes simply saying you want to make a check will be the only way to make progress.”

I had also been playing in this game for like 6 months with no such problems, maybe it was just an off day for him or something.

 

[Reynard]

What makes you think I am using them as a "cudgel?" I'm showing that the game doesn't support the "pixelbitching" you say you don't find fun, if the DM is following the standard adjudication process. Which I do.

Emphasis mine.
This. This right here. That's the cudgel You are explicitly stating there is a "right way to play" and implicitly stating that playing that way make your game superior.

It's weird you can't see it.