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

[nevin]

I’ve been at this almost 40 years and it comes up constantly. Typically when bad things happen to PCs. “I want to pick the lock” very quickly morphs into “I never said I actually pick the lock” once the referee assumes intentions equal actions and applies any consequences to the character based on the assumed action. Some players like to play word games as a shield against bad stuff happening to their PC. So either the player explicitly declares an action or their character doesn’t perform any actions. Having a clear idea of what they intended is really helpful to make sure everyone’s on the same page.

simple to handle. for a game or two everytime a character says a vague question like I want to pick the lock look at them and say. "Roll if you are picking the lock" then there is no vagueness. If they continue to argue remind them of how you worded your statement and tell them they can accept it or leave. don't let your players roll back actions because they don't like the consequences. If you aren't firm that kind of player will push everytime. Just don't let them.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

Pedantic correction: usually if someone says "I make a Wisdom check" it's because they feel it's obvious from the context what they're trying to do and how they'll do it (or that the method is so abstracted as to make the details irrelevant.)

And yes, the word "obviously" is potentially doing a lot here.

 

[Umbran]

If you aren't firm that kind of player will push everytime. Just don't let them.

I get the feeling a lot of you play with, well, jerks, pretty often.

 

[Oofta]

simple to handle. for a game or two everytime a character says a vague question like I want to pick the lock look at them and say. "Roll if you are picking the lock" then there is no vagueness. If they continue to argue remind them of how you worded your statement and tell them they can accept it or leave. don't let your players roll back actions because they don't like the consequences. If you aren't firm that kind of player will push everytime. Just don't let them.

The way I "just don't let them" is pretty simple. I tell them no. No you can't change what you clearly declared. No there are no take-backs to say that you searched for traps before you clearly stated you were picking the lock. But I will also say no to gotcha DMing, so no there is no contact poison on every object that could be touched, no to an investigation check meaning you stuck your head into a sphere of annihilation.

Treating people like reasonable adults and having a chat about expectations is the best way to stop behavior you don't want at the table.

 

[Lanefan]

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

The second example is a good advertisement against TotM play and for drawing a quick map of the room on the chalkboard showing what's where so the players already know where the clock is, how big the table is, and so forth.

But in general, I'd rather have something closer to the second; though ideally I'd have given the basic info before it came to question time.

 

[Lanefan]

I get the feeling a lot of you play with, well, jerks, pretty often.

No, but some of us do play with players who - rightly - do their job as players by seeking out whatever advantage they can get and using it. It's called advocating for your character. Further, doing so does not make a player a jerk.

It then becomes the DM's job to either allow these advantages when found or to push back by ruling against them. @nevin is merely suggesting the latter.

 

[Oofta]

No, but some of us do play with players who - rightly - do their job as players by seeking out whatever advantage they can get and using it. It's called advocating for your character. Further, doing so does not make a player a jerk.

It then becomes the DM's job to either allow these advantages when found or to push back by ruling against them. @nevin is merely suggesting the latter.

It seems like a very passive-aggressive confrontational relationship of player and DM to me. It's one thing to optimize a PC, it's another to try to game the DM and exploit loopholes.

 

[Lanefan]

The way I "just don't let them" is pretty simple. I tell them no. No you can't change what you clearly declared. No there are no take-backs to say that you searched for traps before you clearly stated you were picking the lock. But I will also say no to gotcha DMing, so no there is no contact poison on every object that could be touched, no to an investigation check meaning you stuck your head into a sphere of annihilation.

Treating people like reasonable adults and having a chat about expectations is the best way to stop behavior you don't want at the table.

To the bolded, here's the kernel of my chat where "you" refers to characters not players: "The game world will, in the end and if given its way, try its best to kill you dead once you leave the safety of town and engage in field adventuring; and not all the dangers will be obvious. Keeping yourselves alive is your job, not mine."

 

[Lanefan]

It seems like a very passive-aggressive confrontational relationship of player and DM to me. It's one thing to optimize a PC, it's another to try to game the DM and exploit loopholes.

And oddly enough, I'm somewhat against PC optimization beyond the basics of put your best stat in the prime requisite for your class; I dislike the whole character-build sub-game of WotC-era D&D. I am, however, strongly in favour of exploiting loopholes until and unless the DM closes them (which IMO the DM should, preferably before they're found and used by the players).

Put another way, as a player (when I'm thinking as a gamist) the true opponent that I'm playing to beat is the rules themselves.

A good DM can't be gamed.

 

[Umbran]

No, but some of us do play with players who - rightly - do their job as players by seeking out whatever advantage they can get and using it. It's called advocating for your character. Further, doing so does not make a player a jerk.

With respect, characterizations of "continue to argue" and needing to say "accept it or leave" are not descriptions of what I consider a healthy table at which players are "just doing their job".

Players have more than one job - and seeking advantages for themselves is rather below having a handle on keeping the table respectful and pleasant. If the players need to be reminded that they may be asked to leave, they aren't doing that job.