D&D 5E Ability Check origins at your table

[the Jester]

You tell me what you're doing; I will let you know when and if to make a check, and what check to make.

 

[Umbran]

If the player says something like "Well, can I roll for Investigation?" I'll usually respond with "Maybe, what does that 'investigation' look like?" and let them narrate. I don't mind being flexible so long as it's not too farfetched and the player can really sell it.

And, there's nothing really wrong with that, but it (not you, personally - but the method in general) has a few points to note:

1) Sometimes the thing the player wants doesn't "look like" anything. What does using Insight to get a read on an NPC "look like"? How many different narrations of getting a read on NPCs should we make players come up with over time?

2) Presumably the character with a skill knows how to use the skill. The player however, may not. An archetype here is use of Persuasion - a character with it knows what to say to persuade, but the player may really not. Indeed the GM may not either - most of us GMs are not high-end negotiators, and able to survive in the wilderness with just a penknife, and experts in alchemy all in one person, right?. So, we can end up gating character success on whether the player gets the GM's concept of what should work.

3) The character is supposed to be able to do stuff. Why does the player have to "sell it" for the character to be able to succeed? What if the player's not really a salesman (or, really - narrator)? Do we really want to link character success to player narration skill?

While combat is a different subsystem, some of the logic here is the same - we don't need to make the player describe every single attempt to do damage - "I attack with my axe" becomes sufficient. It isn't clear why skills should not also get shorthand expression for some cases.

 

[jgsugden]

All of the above, and more.

Players sometimes ask to make a check. When they do, I usually ask for clarification on what they want to get out of it.

Players sometimes describe an action and I decide it requires a check. I then tell them it will require a check and suggest some options, but they're free to counter with different suggestions. For example, when they tell me they're looking around the strange room I just described I might say they need to make a check - and they can use wisdom (perception) to notice something out of place, or intelligence (investigation) to figure out what the things they've noticed mean. They might counter back and say they want to use insight because what they're trying to determine what type of person would set things up in such a strange way. I might respond and tell them they can attempt it, but it will have a high DC.

However, I usually do not name skills when talking about rolls. I ask players to make an ability score role and apply proficiency (or expertise or other bonuses), if they have the correct skill, if it relates to something they've done as a PC, or if the relates to something in their background. For example, if a player is not proficient in survival but has tried to track for a prolonged period of time, I may give them half or full proficiency bonuses without the skill. Similarly, if a player's backstory has their PC being interested in flowers, I might give them proficiency - or even expertise - on intelligence checks about flowers even if they are not proficienct in nature.

 

[el-remmen]

The thing that bugs me about this conversation is the repeated fallacious statements that "You can only interact meaningfully with the world if you do it this way."

I haven't seen anyone here say this, let alone repeatedly. But I must admit I read some responses more closely than others so I might have missed the repeated use of "meaningfully" or "only" or their synonyms.

 

[Oofta]

I haven't seen anyone here say this, let alone repeatedly. But I must admit I read some responses more closely than others so I might have missed the repeated use of "meaningfully" or "only" or their synonyms.

It may not be intentional but I'm talking about things like "we're looking for players to be actively contributing to the fiction" sure makes it sound like the only way to have player interacting with the fiction is to use a specific structure.

Some of this does have to do with how you handle skill resolution. I want the PC skill to matter, not player skill for things that skills cover. If there's a locksmith at the table that can describe in detail how to pick a lock, they aren't getting any bonus to their thieve's tools check. Same with a lot of things for me - including investigation for example. Different strokes and all.

 

[el-remmen]

The way I look at it the more info a player gives me the easier and smoother it is to make adjudications not only about the skill performance itself but all the potential myriad consequences and factors that may be involved. I don’t expect a player to have to know how to pick a lock, I do expect a player to tell me (and when they don’t I frequently ask) if their character is trying to be fast, being slow, trying to be quiet, squatting down in front of the door or standing to one side the best they can, etc.

 

[Oofta]

The way I look at it the more info a player gives me the easier and smoother it is to make adjudications not only about the skill performance itself but all the potential myriad consequences and factors that may be involved. I don’t expect a player to have to know how to pick a lock, I do expect a player to tell me (and when they don’t I frequently ask) if their character is trying to be fast, being slow, trying to be quiet, squatting down in front of the door or standing to one side the best they can, etc.

Any assumptions I make are always in the benefit of the player. Perception check to notice secret doors? I don't assume any physical interaction. Opening a lock? They're being as quiet and safe as possible. I'll even remind people they may want to check for traps because it was foreshadowed for this particular location that it might be an issue but that was in a game we had 2 weeks ago.

In the rare case that details that are not provided matter, I'll ask for details. I can't imagine that there are no requests for clarifications now and then from both sides of the DM's screen no matter how you play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Do you, the DM, give players checks? (perhaps because they've asked to make one for their PC)
-OR-
Do you, the DM, ask players to make checks? (perhaps because of some action their PC is attempting)
-OR-
Do your players announce a skill and roll, thereby making a check that is ungiven or unasked by you, the DM? (perhaps because they feel it is an obvious time to do so)
-OR-
Something else? (perhaps because it doesn't fit neatly into one of the other options)
-OR-
Is it some combination of the above? (perhaps because a check is a check, let's keep things... rolling)

Vote in the poll then share your Why below...

This isn't D&D specific for me, but any roll like this, I tend to lean on the GM asking for it, but it is a bit fluid, not a hard and fast rule (there will be times when a player may say 'can I make an ability check for this'. So somewhat case by case. I like for the players to just say what they are doing and for the GM to ask for the relevant roll

 

[jmartkdr2]

I’m in the camp of “format doesn’t matter.” If I as the dm know what the player is trying to do and how, then we’re good to go. There may be a roll.

For example, if an npc is talking and the moment they’re done a player shows me an insight roll on roll20, I know exactly what they want and how they’re trying to do it. So I will adjudicate the roll.

If it’s less clear, I’ll ask clarifying questions.

I generally find that some players like to be descriptive and I try to encourage that. Some players are shy about it or just tired today and I’m not going force anyone to have fun the way I like. So I’m willing to just do different things as the situation warrants.

 

[iserith]

1) Sometimes the thing the player wants doesn't "look like" anything. What does using Insight to get a read on an NPC "look like"? How many different narrations of getting a read on NPCs should we make players come up with over time?

Perhaps just one, with minor details added as needed according to the context.

2) Presumably the character with a skill knows how to use the skill. The player however, may not. An archetype here is use of Persuasion - a character with it knows what to say to persuade, but the player may really not. Indeed the GM may not either - most of us GMs are not high-end negotiators, and able to survive in the wilderness with just a penknife, and experts in alchemy all in one person, right?. So, we can end up gating character success on whether the player gets the GM's concept of what should work.

"I use my good nature and social graces [approach] to try to convince the king to lend us his aid [goal]."

Better still, the player references playing to the king's ideal, bond, flaw, or agenda here in a way that makes sense, which they may have sussed out via the action declaration in your first question presumably regarding Insight, thereby earning advantage on the Persuasion check (if there's a roll at all).

3) The character is supposed to be able to do stuff. Why does the player have to "sell it" for the character to be able to succeed? What if the player's not really a salesman (or, really - narrator)? Do we really want to link character success to player narration skill?

While combat is a different subsystem, some of the logic here is the same - we don't need to make the player describe every single attempt to do damage - "I attack with my axe" becomes sufficient. It isn't clear why skills should not also get shorthand expression for some cases.

As long as the player is clear with their goal and approach, there's no need for anything lengthy or salesy when describing non-combat actions as well. But player skill is linked to character success, but it's not about being salesy with narration: See above for the example of figuring out the king's characteristics then leveraging those to try to get what the PC wants. That is likely to be more successful than a player who doesn't do that. Just like the PC is more likely to be successful if the player attacks the monster under the effect of faerie fire than the one who isn't. So player skill is indeed involved, and I don't see anything wrong with that. My expectation and experience is that players who don't have these skills learn them when there's an advantage to be had doing so.