D&D General Describing Actions

[Blue]

I will never understand why "My character has X skill, I don't, I want to have my character do an action that is related to X skill, but I don't know how to in real life so can I roll X skill to attempt this" isn't enough... and with that it can be shortened to "I use X skill"

Worse, I often see this in ways that are nerfs to non-magic characters. If someone has a spell that creates fire or whatever, there's never any question of how. But for martial characters to use their skills and get a harder roll because the player doesn't have the skill so that they can describe is a convincing way, that's unfun.

Now, I do see it the other way - if you can give a convincing speech or description that the roll is made with bonuses. But even there, the "my character can do this" needs to be respected just as much as you respect that your friends can't teleport, take a axe hit to the stomach, or pilot an interstellar FTL ship.

 

[Stormonu]

I've definitely always seen D&D as a fantasy simulator. The idea pretty much informs all my feelings about TTRPGs.

I had as well for a long time. However, I've come to feel that D&D isn't granular enough to work as a simulator, at a level of say, MS Flight Simulator with all the options turned on. There's a lot of gaminess to the system mechanically and thematically, so I don't try to "sweat the small stuff" in the system anymore.

 

[ad_hoc]

It's 5E for this.

The problem is players just saying what a character does, not any description. The player just says "my character does it".

And, yea, I only bother with rolls if it is meaningful.

I like the game to be about characters doing things and completing tasks, not endless mindless combat.

Seems like a table issue.

I've only had this issue with one player and they were used to how 3e works.

5e is based around 3 pillars of play. Combat, exploration, and social interaction.

It depends on the nature of the campaign but I find we get a good blend. Right now we are spending a good deal of time in combat but only because we have 2 new players who are still learning the rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I had as well for a long time. However, I've come to feel that D&D isn't granular enough to work as a simulator, at a level of say, MS Flight Simulator with all the options turned on. There's a lot of gaminess to the system mechanically and thematically, so I don't try to "sweat the small stuff" in the system anymore.

Me, I always try to get as close as my players will tolerate. Just how I was raised, I guess.

 

[aco175]

I think I'm anal enough and sarcastic enough to respond to a DM asking me about trivial things that I would go all out in the next game session. My character would invent a Bic lighter and strike anywhere matches to sell wrecking the local economy. If I needed to research the thing, then I could describe making the spark and fuel to use in the thing. I would need a whole town of workers and the DM could make a game of it as I expand my empire of matchstick waifs around the kingdom, or he could kill my character off. But darnit, I had found a destiny for the PC regardless of what the DM actually had planned.

 

[MichaelSomething]

"I make a perception check!"

rolls a 2

"I see a rock."

 

[Mad_Jack]

"I make a perception check!"

rolls a 2

"I see a rock."

Back in 3.5, I had one particularly paranoid player looking behind the party and constantly making Spot checks to see if anything was trying to sneak up on them. He had no skill points in Spot and no ability score bonus, and there was nothing behind them, but he wanted to keep rolling anyway.
He rolled under 10 at least six times in a row on the Spot checks, and so I kept telling him, "You see Spots...", since there was nothing there to see.
Eventually I got tired of him asking and announced the party had been attacked by the Spots he'd been seeing.