Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 7796148" data-attributes="member: 6802765">The example I chose emphasized the diversity of possible checks, but you're right that in this example the check I wanted was likely evident from the description, since the approach involved a specific set of tools. In a different example that didn't revolve around tools, I think that would less of an issue.You're totally right that there are elements of leading the witness when suggesting the check type to the DM. But in the context of a game like D&D, I see that as a positive from both sides of the DM screen, because it increases the likelihood that everyone ends up satisfied. For example, if the DM is ambivalent about what type of check to call for (I know I often am!), knowing the player's preference in advance is useful data. (Admittedly, the DM does need to be careful to ensure that the final decision is made based on what's best for the table, rather than as a result of social pressure from a particular player, but that's just a routine facet of DMing.)There are side benefits too: if a player keeps proposing a specific check their character is good at, even in situations where it's only borderline-appropriate (and so you instead call for other checks), it might be wise to deliberately include content that caters to the underused check.Similarly, if a player (especially a new player) regularly proposes checks that aren't ideal (particularly if the ideal check would have an even higher bonus), that's a signal to the DM to start providing more detail regarding their decisions on which situations call for which checks. In extreme situations it might be worth talking with the player about a character rebuild to make sure the character's proficiencies actually line up with what the player wanted the character to be good at.In stricter goal-and-approach styles, the DM may not get as much on-the-fly player feedback regarding their mechanical decisions.</blockquote>

Verification