D&D 5E "My Character Is Always..." and related topics.

Charlaquin · Dec 30, 2017

Lanefan said:
So again I ask: if non-physical ability scores mean so little to the run of play, why keep them at all?

Same reason we have scores rated 1-20 even though the mods (which go -5 to +5) are the only thing that matters; we have 9 alignments even though they do not tie into any game systems at all; we have saving throws instead of non-AC defenses; we have Spells ranked by level from 0-9 and character level ranked from 1-20. D&D has a lot of sacred cows that an edition would get lambasted for “not feeling like D&D” without, just like 4e did. Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelliggence, Wisdom, and Charisma being the names of the Attributes is one of them. But, since we’re stuck with these six abilities, what they’re used for is to grant bonuses to the rolls for a subset of the tasks a character can attempt.

JonnyP71 · Dec 30, 2017

mikal768 said:
So... if your players make characters with good stats, you don't give them bonuses, but you expect them to play the handicaps of bad stats? That's pretty uneven.

I didn't say that at all. Though I do encourage players to create characters with flavour and story as the priority, rather than simply maximising their effectiveness - and characters with clear flaws and weaknesses commonly end up being the ones that have something more memorable about them.

It is fair to say a player who prefers a minmax style of play, or who looks at the character sheet 1st to solve encounters, would be less likely to enjoy my games. I want to see the players themselves engage with the game world, come up with interesting solutions, and not simply go for an obvious option that always involves a plain old check of some sort. That's 1 reason I'm running a 1E campaign for one of my groups - the lack of codified skills makes for much more enterprising play from the party. My 5E group are a little less inventive, but are very heavy on the roleplay which makes up for it.

Sebastrd · Dec 30, 2017

If I, as a player, am expecting an ambush and specifically state that my character is staying alert for ambushes, I'm expecting some kind of advantage on the Perception check to spot an ambush. If you, as the DM, deny me that advantage, we're going to have words.

As a DM, I've learned not to be petty about that stuff. I'm pretty liberal with things like advantage and inspiration and information, because it encourages my players to engage with the world and attempt things. My world holds plenty of danger, and the players will find enough trouble on their own. I notice quite a different attitude among the players when they fail because they overextended and when they fail because I "got" them.

5ekyu · Dec 30, 2017

Ovinomancer said:
Sigh. You try your best to provide a clear and extreme example of the different interests that players use to make play decisions and all you get is someone failing to understand that there are, indeed, clear difference because they'd obviously choose one of the alternatives over the other. That was the point: it was an extreme example to highlight a case where the player makes a decision for increased character success over advancement. I'm glad you agree with the underlying principle.

Actually no. Not hardly. the part where you lose me is the part where somehow we have timewarped back to 1980 where Xp is earned by killing monsters and gold gained" as opposed to overcoming the monsters etc - unless the monsters are themselves the objectives. Are we back to any living thing the characters see with an XP value in its statblock is shot on sight because, you know, Xp? Are we back to troll-in-a-box?

Thats not how i read experience in the DMG. it seems pretty clear that overcoming the monsters by means other than killing, even turning it into a non-combat challenge should give the same rewards as far as Xp goes.

So there should be no XP gap or advancement gap in terms of whether they choose a bloodbath or other means to overcome the challenge and reach their in-character goals.

if a Gm is somehow deliberately putting that into his game, that is fine and all, but its just a decision of the Gm to somehow try and pit advancement desires (XP) of the player against the success goals in-character which seems to be quite an odd desire to add to a game to me but it takes all sorts.

For my games, unless it fits the character objectives and goals just killing some stray "bag of Xp" is not going to be an advancement, obviously and wouldn't be even if i were using experience points. You don't get to level up by finding a cave of bats and trapping them in and buring them out for their 10xp a head.

But hey, maybe it is for some.

Again, as a GM, i don't try to and dont see a reason to add into my game a player trade-off between in-character goals and out-of-character XP gain (player goals.) it seems an intrinsic flaw in design for a roleplaying game to have its GM build into it a deliberate, intentional opposing aspect between those two things.

i do not see that 5e did that even with its regular Xp system.

5ekyu · Dec 30, 2017

redrick said:
As adventure design, allowing the characters to take specific actions to improve their chances in the face of a potential ambush (which includes allow the players to state that they are going to be traveling more cautiously) is fine. As advice to the DM, it sounds like it might have been poorly stated, simply because it could encourage the frazzled and inexperienced DM to think in terms of specific conditions that need to be met (your "magic words") instead of a broad question of, "Have the players done anything ahead of time to prepare for the ambush? Consider their preparations when introducing the ambush."

"Magic words" are bad when the DM is looking for something that is more specific than the operating scope of play. I'd say, for most games, saying, "We know there are plans for an ambush, so we are going to be on the lookout" is acceptable, so long as you understand that the players will, of course, say things in their own way. There's nothing wrong with expecting players to be specific, but there is something wrong with allowing things, in general, to be vague, and then adjudicating based on the absence of something specific known only to the DM.

Also, we are talking about a circumstance that would allow the players to gain an advantage, not a circumstance that would doom the players to a disadvantage. That's a big difference. If, as a player, I get ambushed but have a fair shake on my perception vs the stealth of the opponents, I'm not going to complain. I got my normal passive perception for my normal behavior. On the otherhand, if the DM decides that we all get disadvantage because the ambush happened late in the evening and we didn't say we were stopping before nightfall, I'd call foul. "Well, you didn't ask us if we were stopping at nightfall, so why am I getting disadvantage for something that I never consciously did?"

I would be irritated if the DM designed the encounter to punish characters who did not have advantage, unless we were playing in a campaign that was understood to place a lot of emphasis on scouting and preparation.

As far as allowing characters to fail to act on knowledge they (and the players) have, because the players declined to use that knowledge, I think this also comes down to "difficulty" and expectations. If I am playing a low-key beer and bongs campaign, I might not really worry about what the players remember to do because, generally speaking, we are playing on easy level, and PCs are meant to stumble in, kick ass, and stumble on.

That being said, I prefer to expect the players to pay attention. I don't feel that it's my job as a DM to keep track of what the players have learned through their characters. If the players forget to act on information they got at the table, that's on them. This is something that a number of us, as DM's, have communicated at the table at the start of a campaign. One DM liked to include little side-quests, but made it very clear, "If you do not remember who gave you the side quest, you will not be able to collect any reward for it." I like this. I bring a notepad with me to most games and write stuff down. I review that notepad on the train to the next session. It greatly improves my enjoyment of the game. (I actually tape my character sheet into a composition book, so grabbing my character is the same as grabbing my session notes.)

As far as an in-world justification for why a character would fail to act on knowledge that they have. This is in no way "temporary amnesia." As a skilled professional, I am more than capable of learning important information and yet failing to act on that information, and only realizing afterwards that, "oops, oh yeah, I knew that this was happening today, but I forgot to properly prepare for it." Player characters are the same way. They can forget stuff, even if they have a high intelligence.

Of course, again, expected difficulty and the given circumstance will modulate this. If last week, the players learned that the wine at the feast would be deadly poisoned, and this week, an hour later, in-world, they casually mention that they are going to get drunk on wine at the feast, I might help them recall this information. (Probably by just saying, "Really? An hour ago, they just told you that the wine at the feast was poisoned." But, if we're on cruel mode, I might ask them to make an Intelligence save before adjudicating the action, allowing a chance to remember that the wine was poisoned before putting the glass to their lips. And this would be appropriate, because players would know that is the table they are playing at, and I hope we'd only be playing that kind of game with strong player buy-in.)

Again, to be clear, in the case in point that sparked me to create this thread...

the party was on the trial of some bad guys.
they had opportunities to gain more info along the way including the likely location of and existence of the ambushes.
the module provided in other bullet points some specific "if they know this then assume they get that..." advantages already - it basically assumed the characters would competently be using their info gained, would be remembering the info on their quarry (gained a little while ago on the hunt) etc... and provided hard coded cases of easier DCs, longer spotting ranges etc for those gains without requiring any PC magic words or stated precautions.

then it added the magic word "looking for ambush" to give advantage on those checks whose DC was lowered already (or not) by the info gained.

i agree absolutely that the character can forget important stuff... but rather than invest that "forgetfullness" in the player's memory (of events which in real life may have occurred weeks ago when in game it is days ago, when in real life the pursuit is taking up a part of a two-four hours play in a week while in the game the character is living it on the road right now hour after hour) i prefer to invest it into the character's skills and a difficulty based off the circumstances of the character itself who very well may not be dealing with two sick kids at home, a grocery list for tomorrow or even chemo-brain.

Players are rewarded for paying attention at my table by the fun it brings them and their ability to help steer and control the events, which are typically fun to engage in. I do not need to bypass their characters skills and weaknesses to put more weight on their attentiveness to keep their attention.

In the past, the more i have seen Gms set the character aside and put the players on test, the more it led to less engagement by the players in terms of a far more cautious approach focusing more heavily on the "what i say to the GM" instead of "what my character is doing." A related kind of thing is how players approach wishes... where they tend to wish defensively to avoid having their wording or lack of wording turn into a problem as opposed to looking as a wish as a boon.

This is in fact a sort of key point - players (IMO) tend to focus on what matters to success or achieving their goals... if that is the interchange between them and the GM... what they say more than what their characters can do, then that gets their attention to that part of the gameplay. if they see their character and what it can do is more often the focus of the events than their interaction with the GM - they get more focused on their character and what it is doing.

obviously not always the case and not always the case for everyone.

i guess i am saying "engaging in the in-game elements" and "engaging with the GM" are two very distinctive things that i see producing very different results.

5ekyu · Dec 30, 2017

Sebastrd said:
If I, as a player, am expecting an ambush and specifically state that my character is staying alert for ambushes, I'm expecting some kind of advantage on the Perception check to spot an ambush. If you, as the DM, deny me that advantage, we're going to have words.

As a DM, I've learned not to be petty about that stuff. I'm pretty liberal with things like advantage and inspiration and information, because it encourages my players to engage with the world and attempt things. The players will find enough trouble on their own, and my world holds plenty of dangerous. I notice quite a different attitude among the players when they fail because they overextended and when they fail because I "got" them.

IMO stating i am expecting an ambush and looking for ambushes" is not necessarily going to give you advantage and is not a sign of engaging with the world. its just a claim.

Do you give advantages for folks saying "i am expecting my enemy to swing at me and am looking for his swing?" Do enemies of that character suffer disadvantage when they attack him?

or, if he wants to gain an edge, does the character have to provide some action that serves up an advantage - like say using his action to dodge instead of attack?

If a character says "i am climing the wall expecting to maybe fall and looking out for ways to not fall" do they get advantage on climbing checks? or do they have to do something other than a statement of intent to not fall - like say take it slower than normal or rig up a rope or take lotsa of time banging handhold making noise or maybe getting someone else to use a rope setup to help them?

"I am expecting him to be telling me lies so i am looking for lies" is not a statement worthy of advantage on an insight roll, its more like a request to make an insight roll and not just use the passive score.

etc etc etc etc etc... how many cases do we need?

maybe for each of the above those are advantages in your game and maybe everybody gets advantage a lot... thats fine but IMO it undervalues actual engagement... real statements of not only intent but trade-off and activities.

You and i might have words when i do not give you advantage just because you made some general declaration of some sort, but those words would likely refer you back to the early discussion of how things work and what is expected and maybe even recitiation of the above examples or of other more recent cases in game.

those words would be after the session of course, as at the table it would be a brief "talk later" and move on with maybe a sentence of reminder as to why that isn't going to cut it. (of course, when you said that initial declaration at the table, i would ask you for more specific examples like "travelling more slowly" etc to get an idea how you saw what you were doing as any different than your normal alertness under the circumstances.)

5ekyu · Dec 30, 2017

transtemporal said:
Personally, I use the characters class, background, the players roleplaying and a lesser extent character race, to determine what they're "always doing". People are creatures of habit and habits are formed by what you've learned and grown up with. For example, a Druid with the Scholar background is always classifying the natural world around them and they notice when something doesn't belong. They aren't routinely assessing the terrain around them for ambush positions but they know what signs to look for that distinguish natural animal activity and sentient being activity.

agree.

Lanefan · Dec 30, 2017

5ekyu said:
Actually no. Not hardly. the part where you lose me is the part where somehow we have timewarped back to 1980 ...

Thats not how i read experience in the DMG. it seems pretty clear that overcoming the monsters by means other than killing, even turning it into a non-combat challenge should give the same rewards as far as Xp goes.

Well you're still in that timewarp, then, as 1e has similar provisions for granting xp for monsters dealt with in ways other than violence e.g. sneaking around them or diplomatically convincing them to move elsewhere.

And then, as now, you have to be wary of players meta-gaming the system and trying to double-dip by earning xp for the same creatures twice - xp for sneaking around them on the way in, and xp again for killing them on the way out. I've seen players try this...

So there should be no XP gap or advancement gap in terms of whether they choose a bloodbath or other means to overcome the challenge and reach their in-character goals.

Correct.

For my games, unless it fits the character objectives and goals just killing some stray "bag of Xp" is not going to be an advancement, obviously and wouldn't be even if i were using experience points. You don't get to level up by finding a cave of bats and trapping them in and buring them out for their 10xp a head.

Now here we differ.

To me, an Orc is worth its 10 or 20 or whatever xp no matter what; whether you cautiously sneak past it as it guards the door to the McGuffin room or whether it meaninglessly wanders into you while you travel through the forest. Its xp value is a constant.

Also, who is defining the goals and story that grants xp as opposed to that which will not? If it's the players through their characters, fine; but if it's you-as-DM then your xp system appears to be a subtle form of railroad - either stay on story and keep advancing or do something else and don't advance. Sends up a red flag for me.

Lanefan

mikal768 · Dec 30, 2017

JonnyP71 said:
I didn't say that at all. Though I do encourage players to create characters with flavour and story as the priority, rather than simply maximising their effectiveness - and characters with clear flaws and weaknesses commonly end up being the ones that have something more memorable about them.

You sure about that...?

As I made pretty clear in the other thread, I'm very much in the opposite camp. I much prefer to reward an alert and attentive player who concentrates and actively engages with my descriptions, rather than simply reward a mechanically well designed character. I rarely bring any passive checks into play, unless something is specifically trying to hide from the PCs there and then.

Click to expand...

That right there is denying a bonus to characters with good stats in investigation and/or perception.

If the players come up with interesting ideas I might award advantage or even auto-success depending on how I perceive the action playing out. Good plans could also bring about lowering of DCs or give disadvantage to enemies - but these plans must come from the player, and not the character.

Click to expand...

In addition though, I am also pretty harsh on dump stats - if you dump intelligence, then sorry, I will expect you to intentionally come up with poor plans and attempt to convince other members of the party that they are worthwhile (or leave planning to others, depending on character personality). If you dump charisma then I will expect you to portray a character who is not likeable, annoy NPCs... and so on.

And right here you come right out and say that you expect the players, not the characters, to come up with good plans, regardless of their character abilities, while also expecting players with bad stats to play those characters as if they were stupid.
So in other words, you got a 10 Int player who you expect to play as an 20 int character, otherwise they won't get bonuses (remember your words- the player comes up with the plan, not the character, else they don't get bonuses) while you also expect a 18 int player to gimp themselves when playing a 8 int character.

Personally, I think that the player should play to their characters stats, but I also don't think a plan should be dependent on the player's ability. If a character would know something but the player isn't smart enough to figure it out, then the DM should put that into consideration whenever plans are being made, instead of metagaming and forcing the onus of it upon the player, independent of their characters ability.

iserith · Dec 30, 2017

Lanefan said:
So again I ask: if non-physical ability scores mean so little to the run of play, why keep them at all?

I don't think it's been established that they "mean so little." They come into play for calculating spell DCs and spell attacks, for example, and when they might apply to any relevant task with an uncertain outcome. Plus saving throws and probably some other stuff - this is just off the top of my head.