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

[Charlaquin]

If reassessing the adjudication of the task is the cost of the player developing their approach as part of the conversation with the DM rather than declaring it all prior, that's a very low and easy to bear one. And it's why I'm perfectly fine with a player continuing to develope their approach as we're working through the action and its adjudication

Yeah, if that’s preferable to you, awesome.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Can you articulate why you think this rigidity is superior?

I don’t think of it as rigidity but clarity. If the player can describe both goal and approach in a way that the DM understands their intent, it reduces the likelihood of misunderstanding. Of, “Oh, I thought you meant X.” “No I meant Y.”

At the same time, when the DM calls for a roll they should give both the DC and the consequence for failure. The player should then have the chance to retcon. That’s the negotiation.

 

[billd91]

I don’t think of it as rigidity but clarity. If the player can describe both goal and approach in a way that the DM understands their intent, it reduces the likelihood of misunderstanding. Of, “Oh, I thought you meant X.” “No I meant Y.”

But, ultimately, the latter does the same thing too - it's just less parsimonious.

 

[Reynard]

I think, perhaps, it might be best to say that what I need the player to describe is not just goal and approach, but goal, approach, and any tools or specialized knowledge they are using to assist them. I mean, the tools and specialized knowledge should be covered as part of the approach, but I think this discussion makes it clear that isn’t obvious to everyone.

I think requiring this up front has a negative effect on the creativity in play and the basic conversation of action resolution. It asks too much at once instead of allowing it to emerge. I am not particularly aghast at the prospect of players trying to "get over" by applying their proficiencies to tasks. I don't think that is something I should be spending too much mental bandwidth on trying to block. If their request is ridiculous, it is simple enough to say "No" whenever they present their absurdity.

 

[iserith]

He quoted DMG 239:
“Often, players ask whether they can apply a skill proficiency to an ability check. If a player can provide a good justification for why a character's training and aptitude in a skill should apply to a check, go ahead and allow it, rewarding the player's creative thinking.”

This could certainly be read as support for providing that justification after the check has been called for. Again, I don’t think it much matters if it’s RAW or not, but I can see how one could read it that way.

Ah yes, I know that section. I would say the quote above has been taken out of the context of the preceding paragraphs which basically mirror what is in the PHB regarding the same. The player's description precedes the call for the check and now there's some question as to whether a skill or tool applies. The player makes the case and the DM can decide if it does.

The question then becomes: Do I want players to amend their descriptions so they can get a bonus after I call for a check? Or would it be better to have them do that up front so we don't have to hash anything out? The former is a big advantage to the player who can start vague, wait for the DM to rule, then try to justify a bonus. The latter is on par with any other action declaration in the game.

 

[Reynard]

The question then becomes: Do I want players to amend their descriptions so they can get a bonus after I call for a check? Or would it be better to have them do that up front so we don't have to hash anything out? The former is a big advantage to the player who can start vague, wait for the DM to rule, then try to justify a bonus. The latter is on par with any other action declaration in the game.

Broadly speaking, this attitude comes up a lot in context of both players and GMs, and I honestly don't think we should be trying to employ rules as cudgels against the potential of bad play on either side of the screen. just don't play with those people. if someone at your table is going to try and use History in bad faith for every Strength check because they have expertise in it, boot them. Let the decent, creative players have the opportunity to make the game better and more fun.

 

[Charlaquin]

I think requiring this up front has a negative effect on the creativity in play and the basic conversation of action resolution. It asks too much at once instead of allowing it to emerge. I am not particularly aghast at the prospect of players trying to "get over" by applying their proficiencies to tasks. I don't think that is something I should be spending too much mental bandwidth on trying to block. If their request is ridiculous, it is simple enough to say "No" whenever they present their absurdity.

This to me comes across as fundamentally the same as the typical arguments against asking for an approach instead of just a goal. We’ve just found the line where you prefer the detail to be added after the call for a roll instead of before.

 

[Reynard]

This to me comes across as fundamentally the same as the typical arguments against asking for an approach instead of just a goal. We’ve just found the line where you prefer the detail to be added after the call for a roll instead of before.

I mean, I guess, but since we know that the call for the ability check isn't the end of the conversation, it seems silly to force it to be. Why are we drawing a hard line at "Make a strength check"?

 

[iserith]

Broadly speaking, this attitude comes up a lot in context of both players and GMs, and I honestly don't think we should be trying to employ rules as cudgels against the potential of bad play on either side of the screen. just don't play with those people. if someone at your table is going to try and use History in bad faith for every Strength check because they have expertise in it, boot them. Let the decent, creative players have the opportunity to make the game better and more fun.

It's not really a matter of playing in good faith or not in my view. If there's a rules-legal advantage to be had, I would fully expect players to take it and welcome them to do so. It is clearly better to wait to justify the skill or tool proficiency after the call for the roll. The DM is tasked with mediating between the rules and the players. If the rule is as you say it is, then there's nothing for me to mediate in this situation. The players are free to seek advantage by this means. I don't view the rules in the same way, so in my game, they can't do that.

 

[Reynard]

It's not really a matter of playing in good faith or not in my view. If there's a rules-legal advantage to be had, I would fully expect players to take it and welcome them to do so. It is clearly better to wait to justify the skill or tool proficiency after the call for the roll. The DM is tasked with mediating between the rules and the players. If the rule is as you say it is, then there's nothing for me to mediate in this situation. The players are free to seek advantage by this means. I don't view the rules in the same way, so in my game, they can't do that.

They are free to seek it, and you are free to say "No." I honestly don't see the problem.