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

[iserith]

I don't think it is going to be as common a result as you seem to be saying. Players, by and large, play in good faith and aren't out to break the game and make it less fun for themselves. But many are, in my experience, kind of scattered and spontaneous. The benefit of explicitly allowing them to ask about proficiency after the roll has been called for (as, again, the rules do) is to not punish them because it took them a sec or because they missed something or because the lightbulb went on after the fact. And it allows the GM to clarify and embellish the situation as necessary. No one at the table is a computer. The creativity is the point.

Again, I would say this isn't about good faith play. I imagine we agree that part of good faith play is following the rules. If the rules the DM sets before the players lead to what the DM considers "gaming the system," where does the problem actually lay? It's not with the players in my view - it's with the rule or the DM or both.

It's also not punishment to set clear rules and expectations and help players rise to that standard, if they need it. Your description about what you want to do precedes the call for a roll. After that, there is no embellishment. You can add a proficiency that fits the description you already offered, not one you choose to offer after the call for a roll. That is clear, easy to understand, and a constraint that fosters creativity, not stifles it in my experience. As a bonus, it doesn't lead to the "generally negative" outcome that was mentioned.

 

[Reynard]

Again, I would say this isn't about good faith play. I imagine we agree that part of good faith play is following the rules. If the rules the DM sets before the players lead to what the DM considers "gaming the system," where does the problem actually lay? It's not with the players in my view - it's with the rule or the DM or both.

It's also not punishment to set clear rules and expectations and help players rise to that standard, if they need it. Your description about what you want to do precedes the call for a roll. After that, there is no embellishment. You can add a proficiency that fits the description you already offered, not one you choose to offer after the call for a roll. That is clear, easy to understand, and a constraint that fosters creativity, not stifles it in my experience. As a bonus, it doesn't lead to the "generally negative" outcome that was mentioned.

I think you are right -- most of the time. In the strong majority of cases, no additional information will be needed or offered at that point. But it can happen, and on some rare occasions will happen. that's just how people are. And given the choice, I would rather encourage it and be able to say "No" to the bad faith and/or ridiculous attempts, and encourage the good ones.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I have to admit this is one of the more surprising disagreements I’ve seen.

 

[Reynard]

I have to admit this is one of the more surprising disagreements I’ve seen.

It's a little strange because i felt that @iserith and @Charlaquin and I were pretty much on the same page in the "perception" thread. I don't actually think it is a particularly wide gulf of disagreement. The situation we are focusing on in a pretty narrow slice of play, and we are magnifying it by repeated posts essentially saying the same thing.

 

[iserith]

I think you are right -- most of the time. In the strong majority of cases, no additional information will be needed or offered at that point. But it can happen, and on some rare occasions will happen. that's just how people are. And given the choice, I would rather encourage it and be able to say "No" to the bad faith and/or ridiculous attempts, and encourage the good ones.

I think it's reasonable to allow some leeway here - at first. But after a while, no. Standards and expectations exist for a reason and it's okay to hold people to the ones they agree to in my view.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think it's reasonable to allow some leeway here - at first. But after a while, no. Standards and expectations exist for a reason and it's okay to hold people to the ones they agree to in my view.

Yeah this is where I am.

I'm not going to say, "Ha! You didn't mention anything to do with History in your action declaration, so NO! Eat hot dice, sukkah."

But I might say, "That sounds reasonable. Next time, try including that aspect when you describe how you're trying to accomplish your goal."

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ll quote your initial post (and the post it was replying to):



There are two ways of interpreting your statement.

One, if players are permitted to ask to add a proficiency after the DM calls for a check, it will be common for players to ask rather than to describe how they execute the task in the first place. I don’t think there is any dispute that this is the case, but @FitzTheRuke , @Reynard and me consider this a feature, not a bug, whereas you and @iserith consider this the opposite.

I see. No, that has not been my experience because that’s not how I run it.

The second way to interpret the statement is that if players are permitted to ask to add a proficiency after the DM calls for a check, it will be common for players to game the system by “throwing everything and seeing what will stick”. In this case, I don’t think there is a dispute that this is generally negative, but there is a dispute about how common it is.

What? In what way is it gaming the system to describe actions in such a way that involves using their characters’s proficiencies?

 

[Charlaquin]

It's a little strange because i felt that @iserith and @Charlaquin and I were pretty much on the same page in the "perception" thread. I don't actually think it is a particularly wide gulf of disagreement. The situation we are focusing on in a pretty narrow slice of play, and we are magnifying it by repeated posts essentially saying the same thing.

I agree with you there, for sure. I think we generally run action resolution pretty similarly; this is a pretty minor point of divergence.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah this is where I am.

I'm not going to say, "Ha! You didn't mention anything to do with History in your action declaration, so NO! Eat hot dice, sukkah."

But I might say, "That sounds reasonable. Next time, try including that aspect when you describe how you're trying to accomplish your goal."

Same

 

[FrozenNorth]

I see. No, that has not been my experience because that’s not how I run it.

What? In what way is it gaming the system to describe actions in such a way that involves using their characters’s proficiencies?

It seems to me that this was the essential sticking point: that allowing players to propose a proficiency after the DM had called for an ability check would incentivise players to always try to go for the proficiency regardless of applicability (hence, “gaming the system”).

If this isn’t the point of disagreement, I’m not sure what is. Is the concern simply that allowing the PC to propose a proficiency after the DM calls for an ability roll will slow down play?