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

[Reynard]

It is, very different. The mindset, the flexibility, the direction of the process. At least compared to 3E. I don't know about 4E, I was asleep when that happened.

I mean to each their own but I don't see it, either at the table or in the rule books.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think it is bad or wrong. I was just arguing against the idea that 5E was fundamentally different from earlier editions in this regard.

I think whether or not the players are empowered to determine if one of their proficiencies applies is a red herring here. This is not the difference I was identifying between 3 and 4e style adjudication and 5e style adjudication. I see the key differences being in who’s describing the approach and the process by which the DM determines (possibly with the player’s help) what sort of check to call for - and, I suppose, the mindset fostered as @billd91 pointed out. You seem to be focusing heavily on the (possibly with the player’s help) part, whereas I see that as so minor a factor as to put it in parentheses.

 

[Fenris-77]

I mean to each their own but I don't see it, either at the table or in the rule books.

I see it in spades behind the screen, and even more concretely sometimes when I'm mucking about with the rules. To each his own though, for sure.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was interpreting your earlier explanations as saying your methodology was what the game was saying was the standard procedure. I apologize if I mis-characterized your point of view.

No worries

 

[Reynard]

I think whether or not the players are empowered to determine if one of their proficiencies applies is a red herring here. This is not the difference I was identifying between 3 and 4e style adjudication and 5e style adjudication. I see the key differences being in who’s describing the approach and the process by which the DM determines (possibly with the player’s help) what sort of check to call for - and, I suppose, the mindset fostered as @billd91 pointed out. You seem to be focusing heavily on the (possibly with the player’s help) part, whereas I see that as so minor a factor as to put it in parentheses.

See, I don't because it is sort of the way we have always played. DMs are responsible for presentation and outcomes, and players are responsible for their character's actions. I don't feel like 5E does anything new or different in regards to that dynamic. But, again, as someone who has been doing it 35 years, it is really hard to know whether I am simply not seeing it. But even playing with brand new people between the ages of 10 and 60, I don't experience anything significantly different in the way players and DMs interact to get the game played and the stories told. There are different mechanics, for sure, and the game emphasises different things, but I think differences about how much or little input players have versus DMs is a table thing, not an edition thing.

 

[iserith]

The most efficient way to go about it, IMO, is something that looks like this:
DM: There's a guard in front of the door.
Player: I want to use my Persuasion proficiency to charm him into letting me through. (may or may not be followed by in character role play, 3rd person narration, or other fiction)
DM: Okay. Roll.
Player: [results of die roll]
DM: This happens.

First, that's not smart play from the player. The d20 is not the player's friend. Working to remove the uncertainty of the outcome of the task or the meaningful consequence for failure is more effective, provided the DM isn't asking for a roll for almost everything. And of course, if the DM is doing that, the DMG (p. 236) points out a significant downside to this approach: roleplaying can diminish.

Second, there's not enough information in your example for the DM to determine if some kind of check is appropriate in my view, not without assuming or establishing what the character is doing which is not the DM's role. You can certainly make an example look more efficient here on the forums, but really it's just incomplete as I see it, despite what looks like your parenthetical afterthought.

I'd also put money on my game's "efficiency" being higher than almost anyone's based on practical experience in running, playing in, and observing other people's games plus feedback I've received. The time savings is not on players asking to make checks but in players agreeing on a plan quickly and resolving their individual turns in combat fast which requires different techniques separate from this discussion. So I find this effort to bolster the idea of asking for checks in D&D 5e, which is not supported, to fall particularly flat.

 

[Charlaquin]

The most efficient way to go about it, IMO, is something that looks like this:
DM: There's a guard in front of the door.
Player: I want to use my Persuasion proficiency to charm him into letting me through. (may or may not be followed by in character role play, 3rd person narration, or other fiction)
DM: Okay. Roll.
Player: [results of die roll]
DM: This happens.

So, the difference I perceive lies primarily in the two bolded sections. Under your method, the player may or may not describe in terms of the fiction what their character says or does (be it in 1st or 3rd person narration, obviously either way is valid and up to player preference), and the DM describes what happens. Under this method, if the player does not describe what the character says or does, then either the DM must do so as part of their description of what happens, or the in-fiction action will be left ambiguous. I see both of these as undesirable outcomes.

Under my method, which I believe to be the one espoused by the 5e rules as written (disregarding for a moment my personal house rule, if you want to call it that, of the player choosing the proficiency), the player must describe in terms of the fiction what the character says or does. This is essential for the DM to be able to adequately determine if what the character says or does has a possibility of success, failure, and consequences, and determine an appropriate ability and difficulty for the check if it has all of the above (as well as what proficiencies might apply.)

 

[Reynard]

First, that's not smart play from the player. The d20 is not the player's friend. Working to remove the uncertainty of the outcome of the task or the meaningful consequence for failure is more effective, provided the DM isn't asking for a roll for almost everything. And of course, if the DM is doing that, the DMG (p. 236) points out a significant downside to this approach: roleplaying can diminish.

Second, there's not enough information in your example for the DM to determine if some kind of check is appropriate in my view, not without assuming or establishing what the character is doing which is not the DM's role. You can certainly make an example look more efficient here on the forums, but really it's just incomplete as I see it, despite what looks like your parenthetical afterthought.

I'd also put money on my game's "efficiency" being higher than almost anyone's based on practical experience in running, playing in, and observing other people's games plus feedback I've received. The time savings is not on players asking to make checks but in players agreeing on a plan quickly and resolving their individual turns in combat fast which requires different techniques separate from this discussion. So I find this effort to bolster the idea of asking for checks in D&D 5e, which is not supported, to fall particularly flat.

A couple things: I use LOTS of die rolls in my game because they are informative. I don't generally use binary resolution, and I rely heavily on improvisation and interpretation. As such, it is more efficient for players to lead with their mechanical intent and then follow with whatever degree of fiction making they prefer (some players don't like to talk in character, for example, and I think it is unfair to punish them for it).

second,efficiency during combat play is a different issue entirely and has almost no bearing on this discussion. I agree that it is important, and it is super frustrating when players take FOREVER on their turns, but it doesn't really apply here.

 

[Oofta]

While I don't listen to a lot of podcast games (other than Critical Role lately while I bike) I see DMs and players alike speaking in terms of skill checks all the time. It's simply "cleaner". If, as a DM, I know that intimidation will be a lower DC than a persuasion against that cowardly goblin then I need to know what the player intends.

As far as treating a D20 as radioactive when it comes to this stuff I also disagree. The character build and proficiency bonuses should matter just as much or more as the player's ability to read the DM.

 

[Reynard]

So, the difference I perceive lies primarily in the two bolded sections. Under your method, the player may or may not describe in terms of the fiction what their character says or does (be it in 1st or 3rd person narration, obviously either way is valid and up to player preference), and the DM describes what happens. Under this method, if the player does not describe what the character says or does, then either the DM must do so as part of their description of what happens, or the in-fiction action will be left ambiguous. I see both of these as undesirable outcomes.

Under my method, which I believe to be the one espoused by the 5e rules as written (disregarding for a moment my personal house rule, if you want to call it that, of the player choosing the proficiency), the player must describe in terms of the fiction what the character says or does. This is essential for the DM to be able to adequately determine if what the character says or does has a possibility of success, failure, and consequences, and determine an appropriate ability and difficulty for the check if it has all of the above (as well as what proficiencies might apply.)

I don't think this is true. It says that the player tells the DM what their character is doing. Those aren't the same thing.