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

[Charlaquin]

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.

I am also ok with players asking clarifying questions if my description is unclear to them, but I still strive to be clear enough that it won’t be necessary too often. I also think most questions players ask during play aren’t really clarifying the description, they’re attempting to gain additional information, without committing to an action. I encourage players to ask questions if they don’t understand something I’ve said, but if they want to find out about something I didn’t say, to describe an action their character takes to try and find it out.

 

[Charlaquin]

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".

Yeah, most of the people I play with regularly are neurodivergent in some way, and a few of them are also old enough that memorizing large amounts of new information and retaining it from week to week isn’t as easy for them as it once was. I try to be patient, as long as they’re making an effort.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Yeah, like @Charlaquin said, I’m not going to tell a player, “Ha! You said X! No backing out now!” But I’d like to evolve toward clarity and specificity. I’m kind of surprised this is a debate; it makes me think you are envisioning something much different than I am describing.

If a player says, “I attack the orc” I’m willing to ask “with what?”

The 30th time?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yeah, like @Charlaquin said, I’m not going to tell a player, “Ha! You said X! No backing out now!” But I’d like to evolve toward clarity and specificity. I’m kind of surprised this is a debate; it makes me think you are envisioning something much different than I am describing.

If a player says, “I attack the orc” I’m willing to ask “with what?”

The 30th time?

I think that's it though: There's no limit. 30th time is same as the first.

Some of us, like I assume @Reynard (though I don't speak for him), are so used to that sort of thing, that we long ago stopped worrying about it. In fact, in some cases, we (rightly or wrongly) see having low-to-zero expectations of our players (when it comes to this aspect) as a virtue. You don't have any problem playing with players who play that way, because you expect it. Therefore, you are being inclusive.

In thinking about this here I have arrived at a more neutral outlook on it (you take the bad with the good, and there's no reason you can't try to move toward "better", even if it's slow and you accept far less than 100% as victory!)

 

[Reynard]

The result is that each action is now a negotiation.

It always was. The only difference is where in the process does the GM say "Strength check."

 

[Reynard]

I think it is important to note that these situations are, by their very nature, uncommon and thus the extra negotiation that @iserith and @Charlaquin seem to be concerned about will be likewise uncommon. Generally speaking i agree with them about the process, I just don't don't have any problem with allowing the player to apply some creative problem solving prior to the dice being rolled. And I think the rules support and expect that kind of thing.

 

[Mistwell]

This is one of the flaws of online gaming sites like Roll20 and Foundry. They set skills a specific way, and while you can alter it and can make it a different kind of check, all the tools are set up to make the check the "standard" way and it's not that simple to make it differently.

 

[Eltab]

STR(History): opening a book that has been sitting on a frozen shelf - polar / tundra outside - for a few generations. You have to be careful of the brittle pages but you also have to break the hardened glue in the binding.

 

[Charlaquin]

It always was. The only difference is where in the process does the GM say "Strength check."

I disagree. If the player describes all the necessary details, the DM says what to roll based on that description, and the player rolls it, there was no negotiation. It’s just narration -> resolution -> narration.

I think it is important to note that these situations are, by their very nature, uncommon and thus the extra negotiation that @iserith and @Charlaquin seem to be concerned about will be likewise uncommon.

Again, I disagree. In my experience it’s pretty common.

 

[Reynard]

I disagree. If the player describes all the necessary details, the DM says what to roll based on that description, and the player rolls it, there was no negotiation. It’s just narration -> resolution -> narration.

Except in 5e there is an explicitly allowed, possible additional step: the player making the case for a proficiency after the ability check has been called for. It isn't an optional rule and while whether the proficiency applies is up to the GM, the asking is NOT up to the GM.