Let's get to the heart of the criticisms shall we?
Oh, good, we can finally stop beating around the bush.
1. Magic Words. You have stated, repeatedly that if the player narrates an action in a particular way, that the DM will grant automatic success for that action. And, you have repeatedly stated that this is a good thing. How is this not, by definition, magic words? How do you avoid the player simply gaming the DM and ignoring the character? These narrations are based on the DM using bonds,flaws and whatnot as well as telegraphing to the player to guide the player to making action narrations that will bypass the skill system.
I would define that as "magic words". If the player can come up with just the right phrase, the DM will ignore the game and grant success. Not only that, but, this behavior is actually encouraged.
Maybe we’re using the term “magic words” differently. To me, “Magic words” implies that there is a specific set of words or phrases the DM already has in mind that, if said, is a magic win button. It also implies that nothing but the Magic Words the DM has in mind will be successful. That is not what we do. We set the challenges, and leave it to the player to come up with solutions, which we will evaluate and narrate the results of. That’s why when you ask us directly, “what words do I have to use to be allowed to make an Insight check?” or “what action can I take to find out this monster’s weakness,” we can’t give a direct answer. Because we don’t have a specific set of words or specific action in mind (and in my opinion, it would be bad DMing form to do so, because that really would be what I’d consider “magic words”.)
But maybe thats not what you’re using the term “magic words” to mean? It seems from this comment that you’re just using it to mean that it is possible for a PC to achieve a goal without having to pass a check based on the approach they describe. And if that’s what “magic words” means to you then yeah, I guess our play style does make that possible? But I don’t see why that’s a bad thing. That’s a good thing, in my opinion. If an action a character takes doesn’t leave any room for failure, it should succeed without a check. Otherwise you’re left with a situation where the dice clearly indicate failure, but failure contradicts the narrative.
I suspect this is our first major point of divergence in taste: I prefer to begin from the narrative, and use the mechanics when necessary to determine what happens when the outcome of a narrative action is in doubt. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I suspect you prefer to start with the mechanics and form a narrative based on the outcomes the mechanics indicate. I believe these are two equally valid ways to approach the game, but I personally do not care for the latter.
Criticism: This allows the player to ignore their character sheet, forces the DM into the front and center of the game since the player must "read the DM" in order to make action declarations, rather than engaging with the fiction.
I can agree that it makes success and failure without reference to the character sheet possible, and requires the DM to play a very active role and the players to pay attention to the DM. I do not consider that to be a bad thing, and I’m not sure why anyone would. I also disagree that it discourages engaging with the fiction; on the contrary, in my experience it encourages engagement with the fiction first and foremost, rather than allowing players to disengage from the fiction in favor of engaging only with the game rules.
2. Separation of Character and Player Knowledge. By and large, most gamers see the need to at least attempt to separate character and player knowledge. We usually call it getting into character. However, this style forces the player to directly act on player knowledge - how the player interprets the DM's at the table actions - rather than interpreting the game through the lens of their character.
Criticism: How does this style avoid the bleed over between in character and out of character knowledge?
Here is our second major point of divergence in taste. I do not see any problem with the player utilizing player knowledge, at all. Perhaps you could explain to me why you think this is a bad thing? I honestly don’t see any reason to want to take player knowledge out of the equation, and in fact, I have seen a great many problems arise specifically as a result of trying to do so. Not the least of which is the problem of trying to navigate deciding what actions you need to take in-game before it is considered acceptable to act on knowledge the player undeniably has, which you illustrated quite eloquently in your question about Intellect Devourers. You solve this problem by asking the DM out of character what they want you to do. I solve this problem by not trying to separate player knowledge from character knowledge in the first place.
3. The DM has to juggle so much at the table. There is the adventure the DM is trying to run, plus the four or five players who are all interacting to various degrees, plus various other distractions. In order for this playstyle to work, the DM must communicate virtually all the information to the players as fast as possible in order for the players to actually be able to take actions that have a chance of working.
Criticism: How do you get that information into the players hands quickly enough? How do you avoid forgetting details and how do you deal with mistakes?
I dunno, skills to pay the bills, I guess? Have I ever accidentally left out an important detail because I have given myself too much to keep track of? Of course. But I learn from that mistake and I do better next time. At this point I’ve had a lot of practice and I’ve gotten pretty good at keeping track of a lot of stuff, and also at knowing my limits and not making my own job harder than I can handle (or, not too much harder, anyway. If I don’t push myself, I won’t continue to improve). That’s an important part of being a DM in my opinion.
4. Since the players must never declare direct skill or ability checks, there will be times when the player has no idea how to frame an action in order to succeed. See the Paladin vs Intellect Devourer example.
Criticism: What happens when the player is stuck? How do you keep the game moving when the players don't know how to frame their actions?
Honestly? If the player can’t think of a way to frame an action, there’s a good chance that what they are trying to accomplish would be better executed by means other than an action. This is one of the points where my style diverges from Iserith’s. Where he would have you phrase your desire to know more about a creature, or recognize a lie, as an action so that he can resolve it as per the core mechanic, I feel that is unintuitive for most players, and clunky for me, and I prefer to handle such things by way of the player’s passives. If the NPC lies to you, I’ll make a check against your passive Wisdom (Insight), and I’ll make it clear if he fails. If you want to know a particular fact about a creature, tell me what you want to know, and there’s a good chance you’ll know it. Especially if you have a relevant Proficiency. If you don’t, you’ll need to take action steps to find out, maybe by researching the creature when you have an opportunity to do so, or by trying things and seeing how it reacts.
5. ((My personal criticism)) Time. All this back and forth between players and DM's is time consuming. The DM must convey all the pertinent information before the player can make an informed action declaration. The DM must then wait for the player to frame his action declaration without referencing game mechanics. The DM must then determine if the declaration qualifies as an autosuccess or a roll is needed and then calls for a roll if necessary. Player rolls and then DM narrates. This is far more time consuming than if the player simply leverages a game mechanic. ((Again, see the Paladin vs Intellect Devourer example - it's now, as I'm writing this, been four or five posts on the subject, rather than a single check initiated by the player)) I play 3 hour sessions. I don't have time for every player action to take this much time, nor am I interested in having player actions consume this much time.
Crtiticism: This play style drags out the game and kills momentum. How do you keep pacing high?
Again, I think this is just a matter of being jozu enough. My games used to get slowed down by this, for sure. They don’t as much any more. I’m still not as fast at it as Iserith reportedly is, but my game doesn’t run noticeably slower any more than it did before I adopted this technique. I don’t think it’s any slower than most games I’ve played in under DMs that let players initiate checks any more either.
Or, conversely, it's like someone cherry picked and then gently massaged a string of quotes from the game in order to "prove" their one true way is the best way to play and then repeatedly quoted those same quotes while at the same time ignoring the fact that folks are flat out reinterpreting the rules (as in ignoring the direct quote about being able to discern lies in Insight) in order to support their own pet project.
Yo, man, I am not ignoring the direct quote about being able to discern lies in Insight. I’ve explained to you twice now that what I meant by “a successful Insight check doesn’t allow you to discern lies” was not that discerning lies isn’t a thing that is possible with Insight, but that a check doesn’t allow you to
do anything, it determines whether or not the thing you did do was successful. I’m getting pretty fed up with you trying to misrepresent my comment in order to try and use it as ammo against Iserith, who by the way, agreed with the comment in question.
See,
@iserith, if all you said was, "I play this way" and left it at that, no one would argue with you. It's that you keep banging the "just written in the book" drum, all the while ignoring any and all criticisms that gets you all this push back.
But people keep asking him why he runs the game the way he does. What, you want him to lie and say it’s for some reason other than that it’s the way he understands the rules in the book? You don’t have to interpret the rules the same way he does. It’s fine, you do you.
From my personal perspective, the primary reason I'm arguing with you
@iserith? You want the blunt, honest truth? It's that the worst DM's I ever played with all used identical arguments that you use. Almost word for word verbatim. In every edition. The DM's whose tables were the most dysfunctional pieces of wasted time all looked EXACTLY like what you are advocating. The DM's defended their practices by nearly directly quoting you (granted, it wasn't because it tended to predate this argument by a decade or two). So, yeah, when I see someone banging this drum, and it's a drum that's been banging for decades, I really want to push back because this play style has led to nothing but failed games and so, so much wasted time.
Look, I’m sorry for whatever those DMs did to you, but we ain’t them. Have you considered the possibility that maybe those DMs were so bad, not because they used a particular approach to action resolution, but because they were bad at DMing in general? That maybe they’d have been just as bad at it if they used the action resolution style you prefer? Cause I’ve got news for you: you’re not the only one who has had terrible gaming experiences at the hands of terrible DMs. And for some of us, those DMs did use your style of resolution, and made the exact same arguments you make in support of it. But I don’t hold that against you. I know you’re not those DMs. Hell, a lot of those DMs probably aren’t those DMs any more. Most of our worst RPG experiences have a lot more to do with the fact that we were teenagers at the time than they do with what ever method of task resolution was being used.
