Large language models (LLMs) have risen to prominence as 'chatbots' for users to interact via natural language. However, their abilities to capture common-sense knowledge make them seem promising as language-based planners of situated or embodied action as well. We have implemented a simple text-based environment -- similar to others that have before been used for reinforcement-learning of agents -- that simulates, very abstractly, a household setting. We use this environment and the detailed error-tracking capabilities we implemented for targeted benchmarking of LLMs on the problem of practical reasoning: Going from goals and observations to actions. Our findings show that environmental complexity and game restrictions hamper performance, and concise action planning is demanding for current LLMs.

What makes a good Large Language Model (LLM)? That it performs well on the relevant benchmarks -- which hopefully measure, with some validity, the presence of capabilities that are also challenged in real application. But what makes the model perform well? What gives a model its abilities? We take a recently introduced type of benchmark that is meant to challenge capabilities in a goal-directed, agentive context through self-play of conversational games, and analyse how performance develops as a function of model characteristics like number of parameters, or type of training. We find that while there is a clear relationship between number of parameters and performance, there is still a wide spread of performance points within a given size bracket, which is to be accounted for by training parameters such as fine-tuning data quality and method. From a more practical angle, we also find a certain degree of unpredictability about performance across access methods, possible due to unexposed sampling parameters, and a, very welcome, performance stability against at least moderate weight quantisation during inference.