Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8090962" data-attributes="member: 16814">I don't say that at the table, I say it here when talking about games because it's very clear.&nbsp; At the table, my players understand how the game works, so I say, &quot;Give me a STR check,&quot; and they say, &quot;I'm going to use Athletics with that for a 14.&quot;&nbsp; Super easy, no fuss.In discussion of how I run, other posters don't have the experience and understanding my players do, so I'm going to say, &quot;I ask for an ability check and the player can use their proficiency bonus if they have an applicable skill.&quot;&nbsp; This is because I'm being very clear about my process, not because I'm explicitly describing the spoken words at my table.&nbsp; I don't care if you skip all of this at your table by saying, &quot;gimmie a skill check.&quot;&nbsp; That's fine.&nbsp; But, it's not an especially good way to describe how you might play because it's skipping over all of the understandings and experience at your table that operationalizes it.But, that said, I've also see you make the argument that asking for a skill check is sufficient for the GM to understand what the player wants and how their doing it.&nbsp; I think this requires the GM to assume too much and would rather be clear and require the player to tell me what it is their doing rather than just asking for a check.&nbsp; I get you don't have this concern, so, great, but when you say &quot;skill check is fine shorthand&quot; all of that's wrapped up into it but not said.&nbsp; When I, or others, use the wordy version that explains what we're doing, it's explained and doesn't rely on everyone guessing the correct interpretation.&nbsp; It's also not what's said at the table, because I don't have to worry about misunderstandings there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8090962, member: 16814"] I don't say that at the table, I say it here when talking about games because it's very clear. At the table, my players understand how the game works, so I say, "Give me a STR check," and they say, "I'm going to use Athletics with that for a 14." Super easy, no fuss. In discussion of how I run, other posters don't have the experience and understanding my players do, so I'm going to say, "I ask for an ability check and the player can use their proficiency bonus if they have an applicable skill." This is because I'm being very clear about my process, not because I'm explicitly describing the spoken words at my table. I don't care if you skip all of this at your table by saying, "gimmie a skill check." That's fine. But, it's not an especially good way to describe how you might play because it's skipping over all of the understandings and experience at your table that operationalizes it. But, that said, I've also see you make the argument that asking for a skill check is sufficient for the GM to understand what the player wants and how their doing it. I think this requires the GM to assume too much and would rather be clear and require the player to tell me what it is their doing rather than just asking for a check. I get you don't have this concern, so, great, but when you say "skill check is fine shorthand" all of that's wrapped up into it but not said. When I, or others, use the wordy version that explains what we're doing, it's explained and doesn't rely on everyone guessing the correct interpretation. It's also not what's said at the table, because I don't have to worry about misunderstandings there. [/QUOTE]

Verification