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

[iserith]

I don’t understand. I described something other than “adding stuff based on a roll” and you...decided that what I’m doing is that?

What?

You said:

eg, when the player rolls a stealth check to shadow a mark unnoticed in a scene where I see no reasonable chance of failure for this expert assassin, I don’t admonish the player or say “no need for a roll you just succeed”. Instead, I say, “Okay you succeed regardless of the roll, but what did you roll?” And when they tell me, I think about the scene, and I weave new elements into the scene, or decide what route the mark takes, or decide which of several potential complications will arise, or give them additional information if it’s a good roll, or something like that.

This offloads some cognitive work from me onto the dice, and often onto the players as I say, “okay, there was going to be a complication regardless, but Sinjin is way stealthier than this job requires, so I’m gonna let the group represent his superior knowledge of the City. Which of these two options can he deftly avoid, instead dealing with the other complication?

I don't do any of that because I would not have asked for the result of the roll when one was not required. So what you're doing looks like more work than is necessary for no gain.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

You said:



I don't do any of that because I would not have asked for the result of the roll when one was not required. So what you're doing looks like more work than is necessary for no gain.

It's literally not more work. As i said in that post, it's all stuff I was going to include, and the roll determines some aspect of it that I'd just have to decide without the roll otherwise.

As for "no gain", if you can't see the benefit of greater player engagement in setting the scene, I doubt we are gonna gain anything from continuing this conversation. Either we view the game too differently, or you're just too much in "argument" mode to actually try to understand what I'm saying.

 

[iserith]

It's literally not more work. As i said in that post, it's all stuff I was going to include, and the roll determines some aspect of it that I'd just have to decide without the roll otherwise.

As for "no gain", if you can't see the benefit of greater player engagement in setting the scene, I doubt we are gonna gain anything from continuing this conversation. Either we view the game too differently, or you're just too much in "argument" mode to actually try to understand what I'm saying.

I understand what you're saying and it's more work for no gain in my view. I see DMs do this sort of thing in games I observe. I can get the same or better engagement by just doing what the game tells us to do including the reasonable specificity that you say you find boring. (Of course, even games that don't include that can be boring.)

My views are determined by the game, not from stuff from some other game. If you have questions about how I view the game but for whatever reason don't wish to continue discussing them, you need look no further than the rules. But I'm happy to discuss it anytime.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don’t see how what you’re describing would lead to more player engagement...

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's literally not more work. As i said in that post, it's all stuff I was going to include, and the roll determines some aspect of it that I'd just have to decide without the roll otherwise.

It literally is more work. As in you did more than you would have if the die had not been rolled. You may not consider this 'work' but that's a semantic argument, not a literal one. I believe that you think this is a net good, but I don't see it that way.

As for "no gain", if you can't see the benefit of greater player engagement in setting the scene, I doubt we are gonna gain anything from continuing this conversation. Either we view the game too differently, or you're just too much in "argument" mode to actually try to understand what I'm saying.

The player isn't more engaged in setting the scene, though, the dice are. The player had no additional input, except to roll a die, the result of which means you ad hoc add additional flavor to the scene but don't change the outcome of the action. I can understand how you find value in this, but I wouldn't -- it's just another random prompt for the GM to talk more. I do my talking in setting up the scene, then it's the player's turn to add excitement through narrating actions. You say this kind of play is boring, and that you've played in this game -- I respectfully submit you're mistaken on both counts.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It literally is more work. As in you did more than you would have if the die had not been rolled. You may not consider this 'work' but that's a semantic argument, not a literal one. I believe that you think this is a net good, but I don't see it that way.


The player isn't more engaged in setting the scene, though, the dice are. The player had no additional input, except to roll a die, the result of which means you ad hoc add additional flavor to the scene but don't change the outcome of the action. I can understand how you find value in this, but I wouldn't -- it's just another random prompt for the GM to talk more. I do my talking in setting up the scene, then it's the player's turn to add excitement through narrating actions. You say this kind of play is boring, and that you've played in this game -- I respectfully submit you're mistaken on both counts.

Eh, it's possible that I'm not communicating well, but at this point I don't really give a damn. I'm done. Y'all definitely don't understand what I'm saying, whether that's on me or not.

The player is more engaged, and the resolution absolutely doesn't involve more work on my end.

I understand what you're saying and it's more work for no gain in my view. I see DMs do this sort of thing in games I observe. I can get the same or better engagement by just doing what the game tells us to do including the reasonable specificity that you say you find boring. (Of course, even games that don't include that can be boring.)

My views are determined by the game, not from stuff from some other game. If you have questions about how I view the game but for whatever reason don't wish to continue discussing them, you need look no further than the rules. But I'm happy to discuss it anytime.

I mean, look at this. You somehow think I said that the player being specific about their approach is boring? After I've explicitly said that my players are being just as specific as your examples several times? Like, do you literally not process the information without an example, or what? I genuinely don't understand what is happening. Every time you reply to me you make at least one statement that completely lacks any knowledge of things I've stated explicitly more than once. Are you reading the whole post?

I mean, feel free not to even reply. Your wierd superior attitude is...well, it's not great, bud.

 

[Oofta]

If a key is hidden in the room, I may ask for a roll (varies depending on the situation or not). More likely I'll base my decision on how much time they have, how well the key is hidden and how careful they want to be. All of those things come into play.

A few simple, standard scenarios.

• The group carefully searches the room, taking as much time as they need. Key hidden in a drawer under some garments? They find it.
  • They mention that they're being careful to not leave a trace then I'll mention searching drawers and ask for a sleight of hand check.
  • They may also ask for checks for traps because the owner of the room is associated to the thieves guild. Whether or not there are traps, I'll allow it because it adds some tension and flavor to the scene. Yes, I know there's the whole "that's not what the rules tell you to do" argument which I disagree with from my reading of the rules and because I do it because it makes the game more enjoyable as long as I don't overdo it.
• They search the room but they're in a hurry? They're going to need to make a check or two. Do they even think to check the drawer?
• The key is hidden under a false floorboard? They're going to need to make a perception check to notice the loose board, grant advantage to the carpenter.

What I won't do is spend 10 minutes going through details on the room and having them walk me through exactly where they're searching. The players are not the PCs, the guy playing a Sherlock Holmes character is going to deduce things about the situation no player ever could based on a combination of my lack of description and the fact that my player is not, indeed, Sherlock Holmes.

 

[iserith]

I mean, look at this. You somehow think I said that the player being specific about their approach is boring? After I've explicitly said that my players are being just as specific as your examples several times? Like, do you literally not process the information without an example, or what? I genuinely don't understand what is happening. Every time you reply to me you make at least one statement that completely lacks any knowledge of things I've stated explicitly more than once. Are you reading the whole post?

I mean, feel free not to even reply. Your wierd superior attitude is...well, it's not great, bud.

Perhaps you're reading tone into my posts. I don't have a "superior attitude." I'm just saying what I do and why. You disagree and seem to take things the wrong way by the looks of it. And not just my posts either.

You said:

That sounds painfully boring, to me. I’ve played in that game, and it was lame.

What I provided was what the rules suggest is reasonable specificity with regard to players describing what they want to do and how the DM should adjudicate this. You find this boring, you said. "Lame," even.

You added that your players do describe their goal and approach. But clearly if you find the aforementioned sort of play boring, then a plausible conclusion in my view is that your players aren't, in fact, engaging in that level of reasonable specificity, nor are you adjudicating in a way that the rules suggest. Your players are making some effort at description and tacking on a request to make an ability check based on what you're saying. (Or a "skill check" as you call it.) You are then taking extra steps to incorporate the result of an unnecessary ability check into your subsequent narration of the result.

What am I not getting?

 

[Ovinomancer]

If a key is hidden in the room, I may ask for a roll (varies depending on the situation or not). More likely I'll base my decision on how much time they have, how well the key is hidden and how careful they want to be. All of those things come into play.

A few simple, standard scenarios.

• The group carefully searches the room, taking as much time as they need. Key hidden in a drawer under some garments? They find it.
  • They mention that they're being careful to not leave a trace then I'll mention searching drawers and ask for a sleight of hand check.
  • They may also ask for checks for traps because the owner of the room is associated to the thieves guild. Whether or not there are traps, I'll allow it because it adds some tension and flavor to the scene. Yes, I know there's the whole "that's not what the rules tell you to do" argument which I disagree with from my reading of the rules and because I do it because it makes the game more enjoyable as long as I don't overdo it.
• They search the room but they're in a hurry? They're going to need to make a check or two. Do they even think to check the drawer?
• The key is hidden under a false floorboard? They're going to need to make a perception check to notice the loose board, grant advantage to the carpenter.

What I won't do is spend 10 minutes going through details on the room and having them walk me through exactly where they're searching. The players are not the PCs, the guy playing a Sherlock Holmes character is going to deduce things about the situation no player ever could based on a combination of my lack of description and the fact that my player is not, indeed, Sherlock Holmes.

I'm glad. I don't do the last paragraph, either. Seems like you've found an example that doesn't apply to anyone, which is good, because it doesn't need to come up again.

 

[Oofta]

I'm glad. I don't do the last paragraph, either. Seems like you've found an example that doesn't apply to anyone, which is good, because it doesn't need to come up again.

We have posts literally saying that the players need to tell the DM they're searching a guy's sock drawer for the key. The only way I can see that being faster than a quick roll or two is if I describe a completely empty room with a single bureau with only one drawer containing socks then yes it will take no time at all.

Anything other than that and it's going to be a fair amount of give and take - searching drawers, under beds, behind pictures and so on. At least in any game I've ever played in or listened to on a podcast that does this sort of thing.

Which, if it's what you and yours enjoys go for it. If I'm misrepresenting what you mean give me a simple example. Don't continue to make accusations of unfair representation when I have no idea what your game is like because you won't explain it.