iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Then you are the one confused, because that is what you are telling me my players should be doing.
I said originally that the reason I added the extra flair to my description all those pages ago, was because my players aren't always willing or good at describing what happens. So, I take over that responsibility, and build the narrative.
And my players aren't playing the game because I do that. Despite the fact that I never once said my players do not tell me what they do and I must tell them what their character's are doing in any given moment.
Are you as DM saying what the characters do? If you are, then I would say you're overstepping your role as DM, according to how that's defined by the game. Whether or not you care is up to you.
My players do, and asking to roll perception to see an ambush is a task. They are looking for an ambush, perception is the skill for looking and listening for hidden things. Asking to roll investigation for hidden doors is a task. They are searching an area, investigation is the skill for searching. Asking to roll deception to convince the king they don't have the McGuffin is a task. They are lying about something in their possession, and the skill for lying is deception.
You can repeat "Asking for a random result instead of seeing if the DM will just give you what you want is a horrible strategy" for another few hundred pages. That doesn't mean my players are not allowed to do so.
I don't actually care what you or your players do in your game. I'm only saying what the rules say to do. That does not include players asking to make ability checks and DMs saying what the characters do. Make of that what you will.
Who says it "completely hinges on ignorance"?
I know the only way to truly kill a Flame skull is to sprinkle the remains with holy water. No matter what character I make, this is a thing I know.
Maybe they wanted this to be a cool moment for the cleric, to have them act as the holy person of the group. But my Barbarian from the Gladiator pits knew the answer before any even thought to ask the question.
I will also guarantee that across about 20 different players I am aware of, I can only think of two besides myself who might know that. And that is because both of them have also been DMs for years.
I have enough advantages as a player, why shouldn't I try and limit myself in terms of knowledge, by asking the DM if they are okay with me knowing certain facts? Why does this seem to flabbergast people so much?
I'm not saying you can't play dumb only that you don't have to, nor do you have to justify your knowledge by asking to make checks or asking the DM for permission to act on your knowledge.
And round and round the circle we go.
"Meaningful consequence" meaning that the failure must make the situation worse. If my understanding of this conversation has gotten me anywhere. It cannot mean that failure results in no change. Even if no change is the logical conclusion of failure. If no change would be the consequence of failure, the character either fails or succeeds with no roll.
Players post a guard for night watch in the inn. I will not call a perception check to see if they hear their neighbor being murdered. If they succeed, they will find the dead body. If they fail, the body is discovered in the morning. There is no meaningful consequence for failure, so I decide what I want to happen.
That's largely correct, though one could quibble on what "worse" means. That's going to vary widely by the context of the situation.
Also, about legacy thinking. No. It isn't.
Read 3.X, never played it. Only ever played one game of 4e.
I ask for a check, my players ask for checks. People at conventions who have never played DnD before ask for checks. We are not wrong. The game doesn't care if people say "Can I roll perception?"
You care, you'll quote the rulebook at me to try and convince me the game cares, but it doesn't. Gameplay works just fine either way. Nothing breaks.
You don't have to have played D&D 3e or 4e to play D&D 5e as if you are playing those games. It's common enough to have picked it up from others. My position is that games work better when we play them as the rules tell us to play them, not that games are unplayable if you don't.
See, trolls are too easy.
I know Bargheists get dragged to Hell if they get too near a big enough fire.
I know Minotaurs, per RAW, are formed via cannabalism.
I know hags, per RAW, give birth via eating babies.
I know Wood Woads, per RAW, are created by a guardian of the forest having their heart ripped out in a ritual.
Not all of these are direct ties into combat actions. Heck, if I'm allowed to know how Hags give birth then a Hag introducing the party to her Daughter could very well lead to horror. But if the DM doesn't know that then my reaction makes no sense, because that isn't the case here. Or maybe that is the reaction they want, but only so they can reverse it on us. IT depends on if they read that specific section of the lore, agreed with it, and remembered it.
This isn't about "do I counter Troll regeneration with fire or pretend I don't know DnD 101" this can be highly specific lore that changes how we approach entire sections of the campaign.
That just plays into my point: You decide what your character thinks and how he or she acts. But making assumptions can be risky for many reasons, so it's a good idea to take steps in-game to verify those assumptions before acting on them.