D&D 5E "Make a Strength (History) roll."

[Bill Zebub]

I'm arguing that in the context of a role playing game, the difference is pretty much so insignificant that it's not worth fussing over. I'm not billing my players for my time.

Huh. I find that...puzzling. Just as I would like the DM to be clear with room descriptions, I would like players to be clear with action declarations.

But ok. To each his (or her) own.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm honestly seeing both sides of this conversation. It seems to me that while I would never tell a player "No, you didn't mention it beforehand so you can't add a proficiency after the fact" having them generally expect to announce actions as @Charlaquin describes: "I attack the orc with my longsword" --> "I try to move the statue with my specialty knowledge" keeps things nice and clear.

To flip it around, I would never tell a player who says "I attack the orc" that they have to do it unarmed because they didn't tell me ahead of time that they were using their longsword.

I'm not bothered by a quick "with what?" - "with x!" but I can see how it would be better announced ahead of time! (Or in other words, I get where @iserith is coming from.)

 

[jgsugden]

It comes up more often for me because of my approach to ability checks.

I ask myself what ability should govern, and then if there is any reason they should be treated as proficient or expert. This could be a skill or tool proficiency, or it could just be part of their history/backstory.

This results in a lot more 'non-standard' situations.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm confused. Are people arguing that it's preferable to have a back and forth clearing up misunderstandings, than it is to learn to communicate in a way that achieves understanding the first time?

That's kind of what it sounds like, but I think the argument is more in favour of expecting and allowing for player foibles. It's not that they can't do better, it's that some of them NEVER WILL. Some of us still want to (or HAVE to) play with players like that.

In some cases, it even seems like expecting too much of players can be a form of gatekeeping. (I'm not saying that's the case here, but I know that I probably go too far the other way in an attempt to be inclusive).

As in most things, a balanced approach is probably best.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm honestly seeing both sides of this conversation. It seems to me that while I would never tell a player "No, you didn't mention it beforehand so you can't add a proficiency after the fact" having them generally expect to announce actions as @Charlaquin describes: "I attack the orc with my longsword" --> "I try to move the statue with my specialty knowledge" keeps things nice and clear.

To flip it around, I would never tell a player who says "I attack the orc" that they have to do it unarmed because they didn't tell me ahead of time that they were using their longsword.

I'm not bothered by a quick "with what?" - "with x!" but I can see how it would be better announced ahead of time! (Or in other words, I get where @iserith is coming from.)

I concur. I’m not inflexible; if a player forgets to add a pertinent detail, I’m never going to be the DM who says “too late! You already said it, so it already happened!” But, I do think providing all the relevant details up front should be encouraged as the ideal.

 

[iserith]

I'm honestly seeing both sides of this conversation. It seems to me that while I would never tell a player "No, you didn't mention it beforehand so you can't add a proficiency after the fact" having them generally expect to announce actions as @Charlaquin describes: "I attack the orc with my longsword" --> "I try to move the statue with my specialty knowledge" keeps things nice and clear.

To flip it around, I would never tell a player who says "I attack the orc" that they have to do it unarmed because they didn't tell me ahead of time that they were using their longsword.

I'm not bothered by a quick "with what?" - "with x!" but I can see how it would be better announced ahead of time! (Or in other words, I get where @iserith is coming from.)

This also reminds me of a post that I re-read the other day after someone linked the thread. In that now years-old post, I say: "Another upside to grounding everything in terms of what is happening in the game world... is that players walk away from the play experience with the feeling that they had done a ton of stuff that session. Because they did! They didn't stop the forward progress of the game after the DM described the environment to have an exchange of Q&A. They continued to act through their characters, describing what they wanted to do, while the DM narrated the results." So in addition to things just flowing more smoothly when players take a moment to be reasonably specific, this has a nice effect on player engagement and satisfaction.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

This also reminds me of a post that I re-read the other day after someone linked the thread. In that now years-old post, I say: "Another upside to grounding everything in terms of what is happening in the game world... is that players walk away from the play experience with the feeling that they had done a ton of stuff that session. Because they did! They didn't stop the forward progress of the game after the DM described the environment to have an exchange of Q&A. They continued to act through their characters, describing what they wanted to do, while the DM narrated the results." So in addition to things just flowing more smoothly when players take a moment to be reasonably specific, this has a nice effect on player engagement and satisfaction.

I can see it "calming the chaos" a bit.

Playing with newbies, casuals, and (let's face it) drunks, I am used to games being pure chaos. Balancing Chaos is part of what I do when I DM. I'm okay with that, but I'd be happy for a little less of it.

 

[billd91]

Huh. I find that...puzzling. Just as I would like the DM to be clear with room descriptions, I would like players to be clear with action declarations.

But ok. To each his (or her) own.

I'm also not going to sweat it if a player asks me questions about my description of the room if they don't think things are crystal clear. We all bring different perspectives, vocabularies, and thought processes to these interactions. And if questions need to be asked because we weren't all perfectly in sync on every nuance the first time, that's OK.

 

[FrozenNorth]

That's kind of what it sounds like, but I think the argument is more in favour of expecting and allowing for player foibles. It's not that they can't do better, it's that some of them NEVER WILL. Some of us still want to (or HAVE to) play with players like that.

Yes, this, from experience. I have a player that played a good 5-7 sessions as a warlock before he stopped asking me how many slots he could use every session.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yes, this, from experience. I have a player that played a good 5-7 sessions as a warlock before he stopped asking me how many slots he could use every session.

I have a player who's played a Monk for nearly a year who still can't keep straight which of his abilities requires him to spend ki and which ones don't. (And yes, it tells him right there on his character sheet - I made sure!)

Some of us just play with players that make us do some of the playing for them. Now, I'm sure some people here would advocate "kicking them out", but this player (and many like him) can be honestly fun to play with and enthusiastic about the game!

There really IS "all kinds".