D&D 5E At Your 5E Table, How Is It Agreed upon That the PCs Do Stuff Other than Attack?

[Oofta]

Yep, that's every rules argument in a nutshell. Not seeing X, or not understanding how someone else sees X.

It's just a question of what's different. Different players I just don't encounter or deal with by other means? I just don't care if there's a bit of back-and-forth now and then? That I don't do (and I rarely play with a DM) detailed searching of rooms? Is it just focus, personality ... what?

Probably an unanswerable question.

EDIT: the one time I had to ask for a clarification was with a new player and I was asking if they were doing persuasion or intimidation. It wasn't exactly earth shattering either way.

 

[Umbran]

Re 5 - you mean that players/characters aren't committed to actions once they are declared?

In a world in which we don't roll unless there are consequences for failure, and players are supposed to know the stakes and make informed choices, yes, the Player should only be committed after those things are all communicated to them.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's just a question of what's different. Different players I just don't encounter or deal with by other means? I just don't care if there's a bit of back-and-forth now and then? That I don't do (and I rarely play with a DM) detailed searching of rooms? Is it just focus, personality ... what?

Probably an unanswerable question.

Probably some combination of all of the above, but I think the biggest culprits are the different focus (as you say, detailed searching of rooms, as well as your efforts to try to lessen the impact of “player skill”), and you simply not caring about the bit of back and forth when it does happen.

 

[Lanefan]

I only say Players can take backs because

1. Players cant see the world. They can only declare actions based on the DM's description before their turn which can be incomplete.
2. If players are not allowed to take back before any roll, they will fish for info.ALL THE INFO. And slow the game. "Is it this high. Is it this far. What's at my north? South, How thick.."

I'd rather have (2) them ask for the info, as if I didn't already give it that's my error.

Edit to add: and when I say "info" I mean what the character sees-hears-knows. I don't give actual AC values or DC targets etc.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I would add an additional item: Players describe action, intention and resources.

In the early days(tm) of my gaming, a situation like the following was common.

Player: I check for traps.
GM: As you are checking the trap, a contact poison enters your skin.
Player: But I never said I was touching it!
GM: So how exactly are you checking for traps if you are not touching the chest?
Player: using the Find Traps skill of course.

At the start of my current group, I often had the following (an actual example from an early game).

GM: You see a pile of bodies at the end of the field.
Player: I roll Medicine.
GM: Why? What's are you trying to achieve?
Player: I want to know how they died.
GM: What are you doing to determine that?
Player: Using Medicine.

I am now training my players to use I want to do X using Y with Z.

I am also training (and failing) to stop them asking "Can I?"

Player: Can I check how they died?
GM: Of course you can. Are you actually doing it?
Player: Ahhhh I don't know.
GM (inside their head): Then why did you ask, you muppet?!?!?!?!

 

[Theory of Games]

I wanted to reformulate the question asked in this thread because it seems to presuppose an ability check whereas many player action declarations are resolved without one.

The options are pretty much what it says in the poll. Here's a slightly expanded version of the list of responses, some of which I had to abbreviate because they were too long to fit in the poll itself:

• The player describes their character’s action and intention, states which ability they use (and/or skill, if appropriate), and rolls a check to resolve.
• The player describes their character’s action and intention, and the DM decides whether an ability check is needed to resolve.
• The player describes their character’s action only, states which ability they use (and/or skill, if appropriate), and rolls a check to resolve.
• The player describes their character’s action only, and the DM decides whether an ability check is needed to resolve.
• The player describes their character’s intention only, states which ability they use (and/or skill, if appropriate), and rolls a check to resolve.
• The player describes their character’s intention only, and the DM decides whether an ability check is needed to resolve.
• The player states which ability they use (and/or skill, if appropriate), and rolls a check to resolve.
• The player asks a question, and the DM assumes an action the character takes to find out the answer and decides whether an ability check is needed to resolve.

You can vote for as many as you want. If I've missed any of the ways your group handles non-attack action declarations, choose "Other" and post about it in the thread.

You know what I hate? When people post a question based on another thread that I'm now nearly compelled to read so I can tell the OP how insane they might be. I'm not reading that thread. WHAT IF the OP advanced a real point or question or premise that ............ people could address without teleporting off world?

 

[Morrus]

You know what I hate? When people post a question based on another thread that I'm now nearly compelled to read so I can tell the OP how insane they might be. I'm not reading that thread. WHAT IF the OP advanced a real point or question or premise that ............ people could address without teleporting off world?

You know what I hate? When people create alt accounts so they can show their asses in public. I suggest you abandon this experiment.

 

[Clint_L]

I think the consensus is that the DM is not trying to play "gotcha" with the players - I think most of us genuinely want to give them the fairest shake possible, so it's not in anyone's interests to be too much of a stickler while they are clarifying their course of action.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd rather have (2) them ask for the info, as if I didn't already give it that's my error.

Edit to add: and when I say "info" I mean what the character sees-hears-knows. I don't give actual AC values or DC targets etc.

Sure.

However asking for all the information on everything around a PC can take a lot of time. Especially for PCs who might have many options as actions.

I'd rather

Player: Og with is great Athleticism leaps over the table and attacks the orc.
DM: Well since it is a dinner table it is a not easy to leap over
Player: I didn't know it was a tall diner table. I thought it was a coffee table.
DM: It's a dinner table.
Player: Og runs around the table instead.

than

Player: What kind of table is in front of Og?
DM: A large wooden table about 3 feet tall and 6x4 on the top.
Player: Where is that clock you mentioned?
DM: Lets say 10 feet to your west near Xottic the Blue.
Player: Weight
DM: You wont know until you attempt to pick it up but like I said before it's a six foot tall wooden grandfather clock.
Player: And the suit of armor on display.
DM: It's standard full plate.
Player: Hmm...
Jeopardy music plays

To be fair, I have 2 players like this. And I have these tendacies when I run noncasters.

 

[Hriston]

In all my years of gaming, I have never played an actual game where the distinction between actions and intentions is as binary as people discuss them being on internet message boards.

I think awareness of the distinction is beneficial in a few ways. Describing their character’s goal/intention lets players voice their hopes for the outcome of their character’s action, giving them a means to direct the course of the fiction and to give definition to the conflict in which their characters are engaged. Describing their character’s task/approach/action paints a clear picture grounded in the fiction of what their character is doing to achieve that goal.

That being said, I included those two elements in the poll because I wanted to focus on what the player is actually saying at the table to play their character, but I also wanted to avoid using the more general “action declaration” because there's clearly a subset of respondents who feel that by asking questions or saying something like, "I make a Wisdom check," that they're making an action declaration of sorts even though they're stating neither what their character is trying to accomplish nor how they go about the attempt, and I didn't want imply they're not participating in the game as fully as someone who's making a more formal declaration.

If the distinction is unimportant to you, feel free to respond to the poll as if it only had five options instead of nine by lumping together the first six options into two groups, one in which the player rolls at will and another where the DM calls for a roll.