Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="iserith" data-source="post: 7791436" data-attributes="member: 97077">For actions in combat or out of combat, I ask that players tell me what they want to do and what they hope to accomplish by doing it. If that task is simple, then the description tends to be simple. If that task is convoluted, then the description tends to be detailed. If the player is good with words, the description tends to be succinct. If the player is not so good with words, the description tends to be less so. The goal here is not particular words or phrases, but a clear statement of an approach to a goal that everyone at the table can understand.The rules for D&D 5e set forth a standard of reasonable specificity for the player, particularly as it relates to exploration challenges. I imagine this is because the DM has to have enough information to judge whether what the player has described is successful, a failure, or whether the outcome is uncertain. It also permits the DM to more easily set the DC since sometimes multiple approaches to a goal might be successful, but some may be more or less difficult than others. Finally, it allows the DM to determine what some potential consequences for failure are which is required for there to be an ability check at all.If a player only asks to make an ability check with no additional detail, the DM is left to either assume or establish for the player what the character is doing. A common thing I see at many tables is that the player offers very little description of what he or she wants to do and asks to make an ability check. The DM says "Sure." The player rolls, the DM sees or hears the result, and then both describes what the character does and narrates the result. While people are free to play the game however they want, this is all kinds of out of order according to the rules and can, not surprisingly, lead to misunderstandings. The player had something else in mind in terms of what the character is doing, for example, and now we need to have a conversation to correct that problem.At the end of the day, the game is basically just a conversation. The DM says something, the players respond, the DM comments on that response, repeat. Sometimes the DM gets to say that dice are rolled before he or she provides comments on the players' responses. Like any other conversation, it tends to go well if everyone has a chance to participate, get their observations and points across clearly, and thoughtfully listens to what other people are saying before responding. This makes the conversation flow smoothly, usually with little disagreement based on bad assumptions, and at the end everyone walks away feeling they've had the opportunity to have their say. If one or more participants in the conversation isn't holding up their end, then the conversation tends to fall flat or be one-sided.So, that's all some of us are doing. That is the goal we hope to achieve, which are aligned with the goals of play as provided by the game, and the approach is as I've outlined above. In my experience, it leads to success without uncertainty.</blockquote>

Verification