Improving game procedures for ability checks

[MaxWilson]

This thread is inspired by a discussion on a different thread about Intimidate, whether it should be based on Charisma or Strength (or Dex or attack modifier), how circumstances should modify it (outnumbered peasant surrounded by eight bandits DC 20 difficult bluff, monk who had just KO'd three of the eight bandits DC 8 credible warning, etc.).

I want to discuss the issue of attributes and skills more deeply. In particular, the actual procedures used by the DM and players could be improved. Typically we teach it this way:

1. Player declares a fictional action.
2. DM may ask for an ability check, e.g. Intelligence (Religion).
3. Player makes the check.
4. DM narrates the actual consequences.

Officially, the player declares an action, and the DM chooses the ability and skill and DC needed, if any. But in practice there is often more than one plausible skill or ability that could apply, and the DM doesn't really care which you use, so he just picks one arbitrarily and you either negotiate with him on the spot asking for a change ("could I use Int (Stealth) to take the envelope off the table at the perfect moment when I know from my stealth training that the Ambassador will be distracted, instead of Dexterity (Sleight of Hand)?"), or just hope you get lucky.

In principle, the approach of "declare fictional actions first then DM gives mechanical requirements" is fine, but 5E doesn't give enough detail about the game fiction to make this work smoothly. There's no diegetic way for me to unambiguously signal the DM that I'm trying to steal the envelope in a STEALTHY way leveraging my cunning mind and patience instead of a SLEIGHT OF HANDY way using my superb reflexes. There's a good chance that a DM, when faced with an ambiguous skill check, will pick an option which surprises me and makes me unhappy.

In short, given 5E's lack of detailed rules for skills (preconditions, DCs, consequences for success and failure) I believe the procedure should be modified:

1. Player declares a fictional action.
2. DM may ask for an ability check (ideally describing the anticipated consequences for success or failure).
2a. Player may propose a substitution.
2b. DM agrees or denies, or agrees at a modified DC.
3. Player makes the check.
4. DM narrates the actual consequences.

Steps 2a and 2b are already sort of there in practice but deserve to be taught explicitly.

Opinions?

[cutlery]

2a. Player may propose a substitution.
2b. DM agrees or denies, or agrees at a modified DC.


I like it, but would suggest a boxed caveat about subbing dex for strength (athletics) and wisdom for intelligence (investigate) and how these should be rare, given how frequently these are considered dump stats. Or, put another way, stats generally considered more useful (dex, cha, wis) should more frequently be the one the alternative is replacing, rather than the reverse.

[MaxWilson]

I like it, but would suggest a boxed caveat about subbing dex for strength (athletics) and wisdom for intelligence (investigate) and how these should be rare, given how frequently these are considered dump stats. Or, put another way, stats generally considered more useful (dex, cha, wis) should more frequently be the one the alternative is replacing, rather than the reverse.

I definitely agree that not all substitutions are equally appropriate.

Personally, I can see both Strength (Athletics) and Dexterity (Acrobatics) as interchangeable in some cases (climbing a tree) and not in others (grappling, swimming). For me the key factor is whether the proposed approach makes plausible sense--you need actual physical strength to move water quickly. Your approach seems to be more gamist, oriented towards balancing dump stats, and that is a valid approach too.

[Segev]

It's tricky to "teach explicitly" those steps. If you write it out as part of "the rules," people start to assume the player gets to pick and choose, no matter that the rules merely say they should make counterproposals which the DM accepts or rejects.

Better, perhaps, especially in 5e, to emphasize that skills are not what you're rolling. You're rolling Abilities. If a skill in which you have proficiency applies, you can also add proficiency. Emphasizing that the Ability is the defining part of the check will likely help with determining which Ability is called.

[Dienekes]

There was something I tried once, that may be of interest. I ended up not continuing it further mostly because it required a bit too much explaining, and my players were set in their ways and rarely used it.

But my idea was, when an action was announced I would call for either an Ability check or a Skill check, and then the players had to think of a way to apply a Skill to the Ability check or an Ability to the Skill.

So, let's say they're trying to climb up something.

GM: Alright climbing is gonna require Strength.

Player 1: Can I add my Athletics proficiency to that?

GM: Sure.

Player 2: How about my Acrobatics?

GM: Yeah, but it's a little more risky than the Athletics.

Player 3: Um, how about my Deception?

GM: How?

Player 3: I could, uhh, lie to the mountain that I'm already on the top?

GM: No.


Situation 2.

GM: The enemy is rounding the corner. I want you all to make Stealth checks.

Player 1: Can I add my Dexterity if I slink down behind this table?

GM: Sure.

Player 2: Can I use Charisma if I go blend into the crowd over there and pretend to be a part of the group?

GM: Sounds good. Might open up a roleplaying avenue if someone in that group notices you though.

Player 3: Can I use my Strength?

GM: How?

Player 3: I could jump up onto the rafters and pull myself up there.

GM: Sure, I'll allow it. But if you fail you're gonna fall and land right in front of the enemy.

[KorvinStarmast]

Max, I think this is adding a few more fiddly bits that aren't warranted.

The problem is, the beginner DM has to learn by doing. There are not enough play examples offered in PHB/DMG/Basic Rules to see how to apply the Chapter 7 guidance, so a lot of the potential to make the roll fit the situation may be lost.

A modestly experienced DM can begin to apply flexibl stat choices early and often, and not lose thos opportunities.

[Unoriginal]

and the DM doesn't really care which you use, so he just picks one arbitrarily and you either negotiate with him on the spot asking for a change

I disagree with the assertion that the DM "doesn't really care which you use".

As a DM, I care which ability score and which proficiency are used. If I think several may apply, then I propose several, and if the player propose something I hadn't thought about it I will consider it. But that doesn't mean a DM doesn't care about what the check is.


I believe the procedure should be modified:

1. Player declares a fictional action.
2. DM may ask for an ability check (ideally describing the anticipated consequences for success or failure).
2a. Player may propose a substitution.
2b. DM agrees or denies, or agrees at a modified DC.
3. Player makes the check.
4. DM narrates the actual consequences.

Steps 2a and 2b are already sort of there in practice but deserve to be taught explicitly.

Opinions?

It's important that 2. include "DM may determines the action is automatically successful or automatically impossible", IMO.



I definitely agree that not all substitutions are equally appropriate.

Personally, I can see both Strength (Athletics) and Dexterity (Acrobatics) as interchangeable in some cases (climbing a tree) and not in others (grappling, swimming). For me the key factor is whether the proposed approach makes plausible sense--you need actual physical strength to move water quickly. Your approach seems to be more gamist, oriented towards balancing dump stats, and that is a valid approach too.

Not to be pedantic, but with the distinction the game makes between Strength (Athletics) and Dexterity (Acrobatics), the latter can't really plausibly be used to climb a tree. Unless if you have to balance on several ropes set between several levels of the trees.

[EggKookoo]

In my experience, 2a and 2b just eventually start happening organically. At least with players to whom it matters. Other players don't really care.

I often remind my players that it's possible to break out of the Ability score that is normally associated with a skill. It's often too much clutter, mentally, but I have at least one player who is edging toward experimenting with it more. Most of my players are relatively new to the game.

I have one player who has decades of D&D experience and a few years of 5e. I haven't played with him recently but when I have, he has assimilated this idea fully and makes use of it when he can.

[cutlery]

Your approach seems to be more gamist, oriented towards balancing dump stats, and that is a valid approach too.

It is, but in a world where we have dump stats, I think it is necessary.

Ideally, there would be a near-even mix of all six stats in all three pillars.

The problem with that is how later tiers tend to make brute strength and fine motor skills less important with spells or spell like effects.

Look a the Monster Slayer ranger - rather than give them the skills to identify monsteres (and monster weaknesses) - they can just instantly know it.


I know it isn't a best practice, but I've seen DMs allow acrobatics (dex) in place of athletics (str) when it probably wasn't appropriate, and I've damn sure seen perception used in place of investigate; as well as "roll whichever knowlege skill you have".

So, while I think there should be more flexibility for some checks, I think there are already other checks that get used more interchangeably than they should - and if this is happening with the rules as they are, it might be better to have certain, specific, exceptions.

For example: "while holding a weapon with the heavy property, you may use strength (intimidation) instead of charisma (intimidation) to threaten creatures with an intelligence of at least 4"

Of course, that starts to get fiddly, so perhaps certain fighters and barbarians should simply get advantage and/or expertise in intimidation.

[Petrocorus]

As someone who played and DM Vampire, and L5R. Who played Star Wars FFG, Shadowrun, and several other game where skills and abilities are separated, i tend to find this more useful and consistent.

I makes perfectly sense to me to ask a Dexterity (Animal Handling) for a ride check, of Intelligence (Performance) to teach dancing, or Wisdom (Sleight of Hand) to notice a sleight of hand.
I've allowed for quite a time now to use Intimidation with Strength (if said Strength is >12), Instruments to be key on Charisma, Dexterity (Acrobatics) or Dexterity (Athletics) for climbing (the idea that the lithe and agile guy would be worst at climbing than the big burly guy in heavy armor always bugged me) or Wisdom (Perception) or Wisdom (Investigation) to be used to look for traps and secret doors.

I'll try not to rant, but i think the PHB is far to simplistic when it comes to the define and describe the abilities and the skills.
The "Using ability scores" is 7 page long and it's basically the core basis of the rules. The appendix about gods is just as long.

I think both should be separated. The abilities first and then the skills, with for each skills, the usual ability it's associated with and example of what you can do when you associate it with another ability.
And then, there should be a real description of how you set the DC, when to gives advantage/disadvantage and when to lower/raise the DC, etc.




The problem is, the beginner DM has to learn by doing. There are not enough play examples offered in PHB/DMG/Basic Rules to see how to apply the Chapter 7 guidance, so a lot of the potential to make the roll fit the situation may be lost.

I'm with you on this. I believe DD5 is really good for new players, but not at all for new DM.
The PHB do lack precisions, examples, and simply a list of common actions and how to rule them.
And the wording is not helping given how it can be ambiguous sometimes.

Rule-wise, Vampire V20 is easier for new DM than DD5, IMHO.

[MaxWilson]

I disagree with the assertion that the DM "doesn't really care which you use".

As a DM, I care which ability score and which proficiency are used. If I think several may apply, then I propose several, and if the player propose something I hadn't thought about it I will consider it. But that doesn't mean a DM doesn't care about what the check is.

Then you're essentially doing 2a and 2b already. For you, this isn't a change. It's only a change to pedagogy: teaching new DMs and players that it's okay for players to do what you're essentially already teaching your players to do.


It's important that 2. include "DM may determines the action is automatically successful or automatically impossible", IMO.

[thinks] Sure, doesn't hurt to state that more explicitly instead of just saying "may ask for an ability check."

1. Player declares a fictional action.
2. If the action is impossible in your situation, or so easy that failure is implausible, DM will skip to step #4. Otherwise DM may ask for clarification on your methods or intentions, and then ask for an ability check (ideally describing the anticipated consequences for success or failure).
2a. Player may propose a substitution.
2b. DM agrees or denies, or agrees at a modified DC.
3. Player makes the check.
4. DM narrates the actual consequences.


Not to be pedantic, but with the distinction the game makes between Strength (Athletics) and Dexterity (Acrobatics), the latter can't really plausibly be used to climb a tree. Unless if you have to balance on several ropes set between several levels of the trees.

Sounds like an actual difference of opinion, not just pedantry. "The GM might also call for a Dexterity (Acrobatics) check to see if you can perform acrobatic stunts, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips." That sounds to me like something that could be used to parkour up a tree. If you were the DM and ruled otherwise I would of course respect that ruling.


In my experience, 2a and 2b just eventually start happening organically. At least with players to whom it matters. Other players don't really care.

I often remind my players that it's possible to break out of the Ability score that is normally associated with a skill. It's often too much clutter, mentally, but I have at least one player who is edging toward experimenting with it more. Most of my players are relatively new to the game.

I have one player who has decades of D&D experience and a few years of 5e. I haven't played with him recently but when I have, he has assimilated this idea fully and makes use of it when he can.

First though you have to teach the players that it's okay to push back when the DM tells you to make a check, which is what 2a and 2b are all about. Otherwise there's no point in reminding the players, since the DM is the one who chooses (according to the PHB anyway) what ability and skill to use--not the players.


Max, (A) I think this is adding a few more fiddly bits that aren't warranted.

(B) The problem is, the beginner DM has to learn by doing. (C) There are not enough play examples offered in PHB/DMG/Basic Rules to see how to apply the Chapter 7 guidance, so a lot of the potential to make the roll fit the situation may be lost.

(D) A modestly experienced DM can begin to apply flexibl stat choices early and often, and not lose thos opportunities.

I'm not following. (A) and (B) make it sound like you want less documentation, but (C) makes it sound like you want more. I don't understand (D). Can you clarify whether you'd like to see more examples and guidance in the PHB (and/or web forums, etc.), or not?

[LudicSavant]

This thread is inspired by a discussion on a different thread about Intimidate, whether it should be based on Charisma or Strength (or Dex or attack modifier), how circumstances should modify it (outnumbered peasant surrounded by eight bandits DC 20 difficult bluff, monk who had just KO'd three of the eight bandits DC 8 credible warning, etc.).

I want to discuss the issue of attributes and skills more deeply. In particular, the actual procedures used by the DM and players could be improved. Typically we teach it this way:

1. Player declares a fictional action.
2. DM may ask for an ability check, e.g. Intelligence (Religion).
3. Player makes the check.
4. DM narrates the actual consequences.

Officially, the player declares an action, and the DM chooses the ability and skill and DC needed, if any. But in practice there is often more than one plausible skill or ability that could apply, and the DM doesn't really care which you use, so he just picks one arbitrarily and you either negotiate with him on the spot asking for a change ("could I use Int (Stealth) to take the envelope off the table at the perfect moment when I know from my stealth training that the Ambassador will be distracted, instead of Dexterity (Sleight of Hand)?"), or just hope you get lucky.

In principle, the approach of "declare fictional actions first then DM gives mechanical requirements" is fine, but 5E doesn't give enough detail about the game fiction to make this work smoothly. There's no diegetic way for me to unambiguously signal the DM that I'm trying to steal the envelope in a STEALTHY way leveraging my cunning mind and patience instead of a SLEIGHT OF HANDY way using my superb reflexes. There's a good chance that a DM, when faced with an ambiguous skill check, will pick an option which surprises me and makes me unhappy.

In short, given 5E's lack of detailed rules for skills (preconditions, DCs, consequences for success and failure) I believe the procedure should be modified:

1. Player declares a fictional action.
2. DM may ask for an ability check (ideally describing the anticipated consequences for success or failure).
2a. Player may propose a substitution.
2b. DM agrees or denies, or agrees at a modified DC.
3. Player makes the check.
4. DM narrates the actual consequences.

Steps 2a and 2b are already sort of there in practice but deserve to be taught explicitly.

Opinions?

The way I currently run Intimidate is thus:

Intimidate is Charisma-based, but the DC is set by how good a reason they have to be afraid of you. So for example, if you are clearly a big strong orc, that might make the DC lower for intimidating a scrawny human (but is unlikely to concern a dragon at all -- you don't look strong to it). But Strength isn't the only way to be scary -- if you've just demonstrated that you can cast 9th level spells, for example, people will find that scary, too.

I dislike the idea of making it "Strength-based" because it implies that the relevant thing is only the size of your muscles, while that's really only a very narrow subcategory of "demonstrating you're a threat." There are a million different ways to demonstrate that you're threatening in D&D. Charisma then augments the Intimidate, because it's your ability to sell that threat.

This also allows teamwork between party members. For example, a Bard might talk up how scary their Barbarian or Wizard is.

This is fairly similar to how the rules suggest doing Persuasion in the DMG (in which it is not simply a Persuasion check -- other factors like Insight can be just as important for setting the DC of said check). No substitutions are necessary to make other attributes relevant.

tl;dr quality of the threat (via whatever means you have for demonstrating you're a threat) sets the DC for a Charisma check.

[Waazraath]

This thread is inspired by a discussion on a different thread about Intimidate, whether it should be based on Charisma or Strength (or Dex or attack modifier), how circumstances should modify it (outnumbered peasant surrounded by eight bandits DC 20 difficult bluff, monk who had just KO'd three of the eight bandits DC 8 credible warning, etc.).

I want to discuss the issue of attributes and skills more deeply. In particular, the actual procedures used by the DM and players could be improved. Typically we teach it this way:

1. Player declares a fictional action.
2. DM may ask for an ability check, e.g. Intelligence (Religion).
3. Player makes the check.
4. DM narrates the actual consequences.

Officially, the player declares an action, and the DM chooses the ability and skill and DC needed, if any. But in practice there is often more than one plausible skill or ability that could apply, and the DM doesn't really care which you use, so he just picks one arbitrarily and you either negotiate with him on the spot asking for a change ("could I use Int (Stealth) to take the envelope off the table at the perfect moment when I know from my stealth training that the Ambassador will be distracted, instead of Dexterity (Sleight of Hand)?"), or just hope you get lucky.

In principle, the approach of "declare fictional actions first then DM gives mechanical requirements" is fine, but 5E doesn't give enough detail about the game fiction to make this work smoothly. There's no diegetic way for me to unambiguously signal the DM that I'm trying to steal the envelope in a STEALTHY way leveraging my cunning mind and patience instead of a SLEIGHT OF HANDY way using my superb reflexes. There's a good chance that a DM, when faced with an ambiguous skill check, will pick an option which surprises me and makes me unhappy.

In short, given 5E's lack of detailed rules for skills (preconditions, DCs, consequences for success and failure) I believe the procedure should be modified:

1. Player declares a fictional action.
2. DM may ask for an ability check (ideally describing the anticipated consequences for success or failure).
2a. Player may propose a substitution.
2b. DM agrees or denies, or agrees at a modified DC.
3. Player makes the check.
4. DM narrates the actual consequences.

Steps 2a and 2b are already sort of there in practice but deserve to be taught explicitly.

Opinions?

Makes sense to me. At many tables, it won't be neccesary. And more or less it is in the rules (PHB 174, that says sometimes the DM calls for a skill check, and the player can ask for one as well). But codifying it like this maybe helps the shyer players to make better use of their skills/abilities. It's not good for balance if extrovert players can talk their way to easier DC's and better (for them) ability checks, while shy players do not. That's of course also DM experience, and depends on how good a DM knows the players character sheets, but I can see situatios where 2a and 2b make a better game.

[Sjappo]

I think it was the AngryGM who said this, but I really like the thinking behind it. Some of it is my own interpretation.

1) Player declares an action
2) DM ask for clarification on approach and desired result. DM informs player on short or long term consequences of this action
3) DM decides if the action auto succeeds or fails. If so goto 7
4) DM asks for an ability check. This is non-negotiable. Or, rather, the player could change his approach
5) Player may suggest that a certain skill, tool or language proficiency is applicable
6) roll the die
7) DM narrates the results and consequences (and sets the stage for the next action to be declared)

2: this is especially important in social situation. It is often unclear what a player wants to achieve with a conversation. And consequences can be long term.
For instance intimidating a guard may get you inside the castle but that same guard will raise the alarm as soon as you are out of sight.
Deceiving a guard may get you inside the castle but that same guard will eventually recognise the deception and alert other officials. Possibly making PCs persona non grata in the entire village, city duchy, country.
Failing to intimidate or deceive the guard may end the social encounter immediately with the guard raising the alarm.
Persuading the guard may get you inside the castle free of consequences but that may be much more difficult.

4: deciding which ability applies is often very simple. The outcome may not be to the players liking. In which case he is free to change his approach to make use of another ability. Yes, this puts an end to STR(intimidation) checks. But …

5. this opens the way for CHA(athletics) which is way less silly, I think.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not following. (A) and (B) make it sound like you want less documentation, but (C) makes it sound like you want more. I don't understand (D). Can you clarify whether you'd like to see more examples and guidance in the PHB (and/or web forums, etc.), or not? No, what I want for the new DM is a better example of in play ability check transaction where the DM applies one of two or three different ability scores or skills to a check, by using the 'how to play outline from chapter 1.
1. DM describes environment 2. Player says I do (or try to do) this 3. DM narrates results, (Die roll only if necessary)

I reach back to the original game where a few pages of a very short book presented a running dialogue between the DM(referee) and the Caller (for the party) that demonstrated the flow of play. The AD&D 1e had that, Basic had that, BX had that.

Chapter 7 doesn't have that, and it's (to me) a shame.

What I meant in D was that once a DM gets a better feel for the system, or has DM'd / GM'd other editions or other games, the ability to improvise or see where different ability scores apply doesn't take as long to see and apply.

It's the new to the game, or the new to DMing, DM who is left with an empty cup rather than at least a glass half full/empty. The one place the DMG does offer some examples is in the tables where the social interactions framework is described. I really think Chapter 7 needed more stuff like that to help new DMs.

(And I generally agree with sjappo, that was a good post)

[MaxWilson]

No, what I want for the new DM is a better example of in play ability check transaction where the DM applies one of two or three different ability scores or skills to a check, by using the 'how to play outline from chapter 1.

*snip*

(And I generally agree with sjappo, that was a good post)

Huh. I must be missing something here because I entirely agree with sjappo too, and yet you speak as if we disagree with each other.

[KorvinStarmast]

Huh. I must be missing something here because I entirely agree with sjappo too, and yet you speak as if we disagree with each other. We do not disagree, in that an improvement is needed.
What I am not sure about is the value added of the extra steps.
The modestly to experienced DM doesn't need them, the newbie I think needs something else though maybe this path forward is a good enough hack to help out until they get comfortable enough to do without.

[Petrocorus]

The modestly to experienced DM doesn't need them, the newbie I think needs something else though maybe this path forward is a good enough hack to help out until they get comfortable enough to do without.

I'm with this. What newbie DM need are better description of the skills, better description of the abilities, and more guidelines about calling rolls and DC.

[MaxWilson]

We do not disagree, in that an improvement is needed.
What I am not sure about is the value added of the extra steps.
The modestly to experienced DM doesn't need them, the newbie I think needs something else though maybe this path forward is a good enough hack to help out until they get comfortable enough to do without.

Do you disagree with sjappo's step #5, "Player may suggest that a certain skill, tool or language proficiency is applicable"?

I'm insistent about this because in practice the alternative is that the players abandon the fiction-first approach and start asking the DM things like, "can I make a Wisdom (Medicine) check to heal him?" instead of "I'd like to splint his leg so he can regain some mobility, can I?" I think there is something wrong when players ask the DM to "make a check", but it's also wrong to expect a DM to have all of an individual PC's skill proficiencies memorized and to automatically pick the most applicable skill. The player should have some input.


I'm with this. What newbie DM need are better description of the skills, better description of the abilities, and more guidelines about calling rolls and DC.

And preconditions, and consequences. People get hung up on the task resolution/die-rolling part, but game structures are more than just their resolution mechanics. What do you need to attempt XYZ and what happens if you succeed or fail are at least as important as whatever mechanic you use to decide what the odds of success are on XYZ. In a lot of games you can get away with very simple resolution mechanics like "roll a d6 and if it comes up 4, 5, or 6 you succeed."

However, that's a larger and more simulationist conversation than the one I was trying to have. Even in a 0% simulationist, 100% narrativist world where things like hiding inside your own shadow on a DC 30 Dex (Stealth) check are a thing at dramatic moments, or walking on clouds with Dex 30 (Acrobatics), I think it's still worthwhile documenting the actual procedures DMs and players follow in real life, as opposed to the one-way procedure that we tell people they follow, or the fallback method they start using when the method we tell them to follow doesn't work.

Bad (what the PHB tells people to do)
Player: I try to calm the lion by speaking softly and making calming hand gestures and non-threatening body language.
DM: Uh, okay, make a Charisma (Persuasion) check I guess, at DC 20 because it can't actually understand you.
Player: [frowns] Okay. I rolled an 8, plus 2, so 10.
DM: It attacks you. Roll for initiative.


Bad (what players do when they get frustrated with what the PHB tells them to do)
Player: Can I make a Wisdom (Animal Handling) check to calm the lion?.
DM: Okay. DC 10.
Player: I rolled an 8, plus 6, so 14.
DM: It growls at you for a while, then stops, and eventually sits down and starts licking itself. What do you want to do now?


Good (what good DMs are already doing)
Player: I try to calm the lion by speaking softly and making calming hand gestures and non-threatening body language.
DM: Uh, okay, make a Charisma (Persuasion) check I guess, at DC 20 because it can't actually understand you.
Player: Can't I use Wisdom (Animal Handling) instead?
DM: Oh yeah, good point. I forgot about that one. DC 10.
Player: I rolled an 8, plus 6, so 14.
DM: It growls at you for a while, then stops, and eventually sits down and starts licking itself. What do you want to do now?

[Petrocorus]

Do you disagree with sjappo's step #5, "Player may suggest that a certain skill, tool or language proficiency is applicable"?

Personally, i would completely agree with as long as the "may suggest" is worded that way and not in a way that would let the player thinks he the one who chooses what skill, tool, etc is applicable.



And preconditions, and consequences. ...snipped for space...What do you want to do now?

We are in agreement.

[MaxWilson]

Personally, i would completely agree with as long as the "may suggest" is worded that way and not in a way that would let the player thinks he the one who chooses what skill, tool, etc is applicable.

Out of curiosity since we're talking about wording now, do you feel there's an important difference between "may suggest...is applicable" and the way I originally worded (2b) in post #1, "may propose a substitution"?

1. Player declares a fictional action.
2. DM may ask for an ability check (ideally describing the anticipated consequences for success or failure).
2a. Player may propose a substitution.
2b. DM agrees or denies, or agrees at a modified DC.
3. Player makes the check.
4. DM narrates the actual consequences.

I'm curious because I expect most people to mostly ignore the exact wording and just look at the examples.

[Petrocorus]

Out of curiosity since we're talking about wording now, do you feel there's an important difference between "may suggest...is applicable" and the way I originally worded (2b) in post #1, "may propose a substitution"?
[I].

My knowledge of English is not good enough to properly answer this.
They most seem to have the same meaning to me.
Though "suggest" seem a bit less strong than "propose", but that may be my French slipping.

[Unoriginal]

Do you always tell what's the DC for a task is?

I personally don't, but I do indicate if one option seems easier/harder than another.

[Asisreo1]

Max, I think this is adding a few more fiddly bits that aren't warranted.

The problem is, the beginner DM has to learn by doing. There are not enough play examples offered in PHB/DMG/Basic Rules to see how to apply the Chapter 7 guidance, so a lot of the potential to make the roll fit the situation may be lost.

A modestly experienced DM can begin to apply flexibl stat choices early and often, and not lose thos opportunities.
I agree. The biggest failing in chapter 7 is that there isn't any example text.

The only reason I think combat has not become so overwhelming for new (brand spanking new) players and DM's is because they'll start with a combat that babies them through.

If I was re-writing the PHB, the first thing I'd put in is a text saying "Run this for your players..." then a step-by-step walkthrough through spellcasting, ability checks, exploration, etc.

I feel like the rulebooks think we are smarter than we are and we can easily figure things out. But most people really only learn by doing it with their tutor step-by-step.

[MaxWilson]

Do you always tell what's the DC for a task is?

I personally don't, but I do indicate if one option seems easier/harder than another.

I'm honestly not sure if I usually do or not. As a general principle I try to give players about the same amount of information that PCs would have, and giving a DC partially compensates for not getting to see the actual lock you're picking or the bear you're wrestling or whatnot. But I'm not sure how often I actually do it.

Furthermore there can be situations where there's hidden information you won't know. This would normally be the case for e.g. a Deception check or an Insight check. In those cases, not only do I tend to conceal DCs, I sometimes conceal the results--e.g. you won't KNOW if you succeeded in your attempt to recall a vampire's vulnerabilities, you'll just know you think they're vulnerable to silver weapons.