You were the one who brought up the goal of play, in post 240, when you said, “There is a lot to unpack in those decisions though, including the idea that guessing correctly with limited information should be the goal of play.” I was merely informing you that this is not, in fact, the goal of play in my preferred style. Anyway, different methods having the same goals does not mean those methods are equivalent. You are going about trying to achieve the goal in different ways, which will have different consequences.
Sure, different methods can have different consequences... but again, one does have to note, I can not think of a single negative consquence you have ever laid out for your preference, while even the most positive thing you had to say about mine was a backhanded compliment at best, and an insult at worst.
I mean, that’s nice for you, but I do need it from them.
That would be why I said that reason goes away…
You don’t need to do anything you don’t want to do. I would as them what they are trying to learn with the check they’re asking to make and how.
Again, that’s all very nice for you but those aren’t assumptions I am comfortable making.
Right, which is why I said I prefer, but do not require, that more active phrasing…
Yes, I understand this is all your preference. However, it is rather difficult to compare and contrast such vague styles without this phrasing.
Then what they want to know is just more information about the subject, broadly. That’s a perfectly valid thing to ask for, but I do need the player to tell me so, explicitly.
If they don’t even know to ask about something, it’s probably not relevant to the challenge at hand. Remember, this is in the context of an adventuring scenario, where there are specific goals and challenges at play.
Why do they need to tell you explicitly? Sure, you can say "because that is what makes me personally the most comfortable" but that isn't a style. Styles aren't based on your personality.
And you say that if they don't know to ask, then it is likely not relevant, but I disagree. I disagree specifically BECAUSE they are asking for something. They may not have a specific question, they may not know what to ask, but they are asking because they feel like there is something they missed, some angle that they need to decide on a goal and course of action. If they did not feel that way, they would not ask.
Their motivations. Ok, see that’s a goal, that’s something you want to know about, which I could not ascertain from “insight him” alone.
Why not? What other information could I even gain from Insight?
Looking at him. See, that’s an approach. So, your action declaration here is that you are watching him for signs of his motivations. The rest is unnecessary details - not unwelcome, but not necessary for my process.
You do though - you just said it, you’re doing it by looking at him. That’s all I need. You’re getting too bogged down by assuming I’m asking for a whole lot of highly specific detail, but that is an inaccurate assumption.
Right, which is why that degree of detail is unnecessary.
You say the degree of detail is unnecessary, but I'm going to turn that around. IF looking at or observing the guy is enough... well what OTHER way is there to make an insight attempt?
You are presenting this as though "I am observing him to determine is motivations and emotional state" is clarifying information, but this is just what Insight MEANS in DnD. It has no other uses, no other methods, and no other goals. So from where I am sitting, you just insisted that I define Insight for you before I was allowed to make the attempt.
Now for other skills, I can see needing more information. There are many ways to perform, there are many things you might want to know with history, but with skills like Insight, Medicine and Perception... there is only really one way to use them. Sure, you might be able to use medicine to bind a wound or identify a disease, but if you are running over to someone bleeding to death you are highly unlikely to be checking to see if they contracted the flu.
Perhaps you are comfortable making assumptions like that based on the context alone. I am not.
This seems to be the entire root of your style then. You are uncomfortable making any assumptions regardless of the situation.
I don’t agree that it’s always so obvious. Sometimes it can be, but oftentimes what may seem obvious to one person is not obvious to another. Better, in my view, that we just be explicit about our intentions from the beginning and avoid that confusion. Explicit communication is basically always preferable to relying on inference.
Then we’ve just added an unnecessary exchange, potentially hurting the flow and pacing of the game, which could have been avoided by simply being more explicit to begin with.
Sure, but that is a knife that cuts both ways. The pacing and flow of the game can be more frantic and energetic, so short, punchy statements might be more appropriate than longer explanations to avoid any potential confusion on the player's goals and methods.
Yeah, so this is where the sentiment you initially objected to about “asking for a roll is asking for a chance of failure” comes in. By introducing a die roll, you’ve introduced a 5% possibility of not getting this information the DM would have considered “free” had you asked for the information directly, instead of asking to roll a check to try to get the information on a success.
Okay... well if that is a major concern, then you could just give them that information anyways. However, towards your point earlier about Brendan Lee Mulligan and how challenge and adversity make the story better? Crit Fails in those sort of situations are often used for comedic purposes, giving us more to the story that wouldn't have existed before. So, it is a 5% chance of more or different story, rather than a 5% chance of getting nothing.
Yeah, I’m not a fan of that. That gets into what I mentioned earlier about hiding the information players need to make good decisions. If there’s extra information to be had, in my view it shouldn’t be gated behind a high roll on a check you had to ask to make. It should either be given freely if it’s necessary information, or revealed as a result of active engagement with the fictional world if it isn’t. Such engagement might or might not have a chance to fail to reveal that information, but that chance of failure shouldn’t be assumed before knowing what said engagement even is.
But they are engaging in the fictional world to get the additional information, that's what rolling is. Rolling is engaging with the fictional world. Maybe not on as deep as a level as you may prefer, but they are not sitting passively at the table doing nothing, they are moving forward with inquiring for information. That is engagement.
Sure, but then the request for the roll and the response that the roll was unnecessary is superfluous. Either say the character recognizes it as an arcane gate in the first place, or if you forget to do so, let the player ask “do I know what that is?” instead of “can I make an Arcana check?”
There are many reasons that might happen. Like you said, I may have forgotten to say it. That is perfectly fine. It could be part of the normal ebb and flow of the group. It could be showmanship. It could be when I described it, it was the Barbarian who found the gate, and only later the wizard came over to investigate it, so it was only later when the information was appropriate to share. These things are complex.
Right, because I don’t particularly like your laxer and more fluid style. For the reasons we’ce been discussing here. If it works for you, fantastic, but I don’t see why I should need to sing the praises of your style when what I’m trying to do is defend my style against people who are calling it childish or mischaracterizing it as being contingent on “describing things well enough.”
That conversation was long done by the time I came in, and I asked you if you could. If you wonder why people on the other side get defensive, despite it being "only my preference" then this is a good thing to look for.
On my end, I DO use your method where I feel it is neccessary or helpful. I don't even need to ask a lot of the time, because players naturally lean into it at the correct times. However, you insist on correcting the players, on training them on how to respond to you, which is where my objection starts from. I don't think your style is neccessary for every single roll in every single situation. And by insisting that we should train our players to do it "the right way", then you start insisting that it should be used for every single roll.
I think you’ve been having a completely different conversation than I have. Where did I make an unfounded assumption about your style and where did you point that out? What am I ignoring and where have you previously talked about that at all?
Calling it lazy, saying I need to put in less effort, putting forth the idea that your style is better for character and plot motivations. IT is sprinkled throughout.
I do not think it’s necessarily self-explanatory. Maybe in some cases it is, but in others it will seem to be, but only due to a miscommunication. I do not like to make such assumptions, and do not think it’s too much to ask that the player just say they want to get the door open so we’re all sure we’re on the same page.
Again, what else could they be asking to do? And if they are asking for something else... well, oops, there was a bit of misspeaking. Not a big deal.
Athletics is not what I need to know for the method, Athletics is the name of a skill that might potentially allow them to add their proficiency bonus to an ability check, if one is necessary, and the method involves that skill. Based on your example descriptions, it sounds like the method you had in mind was breaking the door. Another relevant point would be if the character is trying to break it with their own body, or using some sort of tool.
And if they were using a tool or their own body... it would still be athletics. You can't get past a locked door with athletics by lifting the wall beside the door like a cartoon. You can't do it by sliding between the door jam and the door itself. You can't do it by animating the door with magic and causing it to open itself. Athletics vs Door is breaking the door. There is nothing else it could be.
And here we bring the post full-circle. Because, yeah, different “types of persuasion” as you put it might all be capable of achieving the same goal, but that doesn’t mean they’re all equivalent. They go about trying to achieve the same goal in different ways, some of which might be more or less effective than others in different contexts. The NPC in question might be particularly receptive to politeness, or particularly unreceptive to it. They might be very gullible, or they might be very shrewd. They might be a pushover when threatened, or they may respond negatively to verbal threats but cave quickly to demonstrations of violence. Any of these factors might affect my decision-making about if the action can succeed or fail, how difficult it might be to succeed, and what the consequences for failure might be. They will certainly inform how I would describe the NPC’s response in any case. So despite all having the same goal, the way I resolve such an action can vary significantly depending on the approach.
And here is where a player may reduce their chances of success by being too specific. By not telling you they are being polite, they are not causing you to increase the DC because you decide the NPC is less likely to respect someone who is polite. So that 5% chance of failure you mentioned before? That can absolutely happen here, but instead of it being becuase the player isn't getting something for free, it is because they took the chance to role-play and put themselves out there, and were punished for it.
And that is where I find things get deeply problematic. Not because the approach should never change the DC, but because this example always comes up as being
neccessary. That it is
neccessary that you know whether or not you could possibly apply a bonus or penalty to the roll. I don't find that to be a neccessary component of most rolls. In fact, I rarely alter the DC for a roll, unless it is to give a bonus for a particularly good idea. I may have put a penalty on less than 20 rolls over the last 10 years, and only for egregious cases. So... I don't find myself particularly moved that I should require players to give me information so I can change the DC without their knowledge.
