D&D 5E Modeling Uncertainty

[Bawylie]

There's one very obvious problem with asking the player to describe how they're doing something. Sometimes the player knows more than the GM about a subject in the Real World. If their RW knowledge isn't applicable, then how can they answer the question without your input?

Let's take the poisonous mushrooms question from the OP. If I tell you I'm looking for a valvo, do you know where and what that is? What colour are the gills? Is there red on the cap or stem? There are other things I'd look for examining a mushroom, but that's two simple ones. You can certainly stop the game to look up what those things mean, or maybe you know the answer, but then there's an awful lot of subjects where it's not easy to find information on some things and you won't know the answer. How do you then determine whether the player is suggesting something reasonable and adjudicate accordingly?

That's why you ask for action and intent. "What are you trying to do, and how do you go about it?"

Also, we don't pretend conversations suddenly stop after the player declares something. If I'm not clear what you want or what you're doing, I'm going to ask follow up questions, not just shrug and say "Well, since I don't understand what they want or what they're doing, I guess I can't DM anymore."


-Brad

 

[Satyrn]

There's one very obvious problem with asking the player to describe how they're doing something. Sometimes the player knows more than the GM about a subject in the Real World. If their RW knowledge isn't applicable, then how can they answer the question without your input?

Let's take the poisonous mushrooms question from the OP. If I tell you I'm looking for a valvo, do you know where and what that is? What colour are the gills? Is there red on the cap or stem? There are other things I'd look for examining a mushroom, but that's two simple ones. You can certainly stop the game to look up what those things mean, or maybe you know the answer, but then there's an awful lot of subjects where it's not easy to find information on some things and you won't know the answer. How do you then determine whether the player is suggesting something reasonable and adjudicate accordingly?

That player is bringing in real world knowledge that may not be applicable to fantasy mushrooms.

The player just needs to say "I inspect the mushroom, to see if I can identify it, and if it's poisonous or edible."

 

[Guest 6801328]

"I examine the guard's mannerisms and body language in an effort to see if he's lying."

"The guard's body language reveals that he is being untruthful."

That is the character interacting with the environment. I don't need to tell the player what his or her character is thinking, right?

Oh, ok, fine. I think we agree in that case.

I thought you were suggesting that "the guard's body language reveals" is telling the player what his character thinks. Because, well, it is. But I'm ok with it in this case.

No, I don't think it necessary to develop a schematic. The player just needs to be specific enough that the DM doesn't have to assume what the character is doing and establish that for the player. I'm sure we've all seen situations where the player gives a vague action declaration or asks a question that suggests action. The DM then establishes for the player what the character actually does. (This is a very common way of playing in my experience.) Only sometimes the player says "Wait, I wouldn't have done that." This is a situation to be avoided in my opinion, but is something of a side issue to the overall discussion of course.

And so I'd much rather get reasonable specificity out of the player with regard to goal and approach, decide if there's uncertainty as to the outcome, ask for a check if there is, and definitively narrate the result of the action taken. The uncertainty lives in whether the approach will be successful in achieving the goal. I don't think the uncertainty should exist past the roll.

Totally agree. I just want the player to engage. I'd much rather have him say "I look to see if he's making eye contact" than "can I tell if he's lying?" And I'd much rather have him totally make up bogus electrical engineering drivel than say, "Can I tell which wire?"

But I'm not going to tie the quality of his description with his chance of success. That belongs to the dice, not my subjective assessment.

I think I attracted your resistance by the way I originally posed the problems, but I don't think whether one plays "Can I tell if he is lying?" or "I look to see if he's making eye contact" has any impact on the underlying goal of this thread.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Sorry chopped off the first part:

Except that there is: What do you do now that you know the guard is lying?

I don't think that choice is nearly as interesting as What do you do now that you know the guard is probably lying, factoring in the havoc you might cause if he's actually telling the truth?

This also helps the scene move forward to the next stage of the conflict. Leaving things uncertain might have the effect of causing the players to hesitate and the scene does not move forward. That's something I care about, personally, but others might not.

Yes, decision paralysis is a risk, so the question is where is the cut-off? I mean, we don't tell the players the shortest route to the treasure room, even though they would spend less time debating which doorway to take.

In my calculus, the immersive quality of having them be unsure of their choice...the tension of being unsure of whether the guard is really lying or if they're going to get the princess killed because they didn't believe him...is worth the trade-off.

It appears to be a concern that stems from the desire for there to be uncertainty even after mechanics are applied to resolve said uncertainty, not create it.

Yes, but only in situations in which the realistic outcome still involves uncertainty. Humans can't actually tell with much accuracy when other humans are lying, regardless of what certain TV shows claim, so if I the player know the guard is lying, with no room for doubt, my experience is poorer than it might be.

 

[Satyrn]

Humans can't actually tell with much accuracy when other humans are lying, regardless of what certain TV shows claim.

I prefer "D&D as TV show" over "D&D as real life."

If I don't want my Sherlock Holmes D&D character to always know when someone is lying, I'll give him a 5 Intelligence.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I prefer "D&D as TV show" over "D&D as real life."

If I don't want my Sherlock Holmes D&D character to always know when someone is lying, I'll give him a 5 Intelligence.

Totally fair. We each pick and choose what sort of "realism" matters to us. I don't mind rogues being improbably good at hiding, and I don't really care how much real chain mail weighs (or even whether it's called "chain mail" or just "mail").

But I do like to be nervous/scared/worried/tense if my character would be, so it irks me when my decisions are stress-free because my character's hunches can be treated as certainties.

 

[Guest 6801328]

P.S. I haven't read much Sherlock Holmes...has he ever been mistaken about whether somebody is lying? Or does he always either know, or know that he doesn't know?

 

[Bluenose]

That's why you ask for action and intent. "What are you trying to do, and how do you go about it?"

Also, we don't pretend conversations suddenly stop after the player declares something. If I'm not clear what you want or what you're doing, I'm going to ask follow up questions, not just shrug and say "Well, since I don't understand what they want or what they're doing, I guess I can't DM anymore."

-Brad

According to Satyrn, if a player wants to know if a mushroom is poisonous they don't have to explain anything about how they're doing it, just declare that they're inspecting it. And certainly you can go on and ask the player what they mean; the problem being that if you don't know then it's very easy for them to confidently declare something utterly wrong that you still might believe. I don't believe there are many GMs who've never encountered antagonistic players (or players with antagonistic GMs), so that's a situation you're going to have to face where some player knows you don't know the correct answer and bluffs you into believing what they want.

That player is bringing in real world knowledge that may not be applicable to fantasy mushrooms.

The player just needs to say "I inspect the mushroom, to see if I can identify it, and if it's poisonous or edible."

And then roll to see what the character knows. That's how I'd do it, but there are people who seem to want to know How the Player would do something.

 

[Bawylie]

According to Satyrn, if a player wants to know if a mushroom is poisonous they don't have to explain anything about how they're doing it, just declare that they're inspecting it. And certainly you can go on and ask the player what they mean; the problem being that if you don't know then it's very easy for them to confidently declare something utterly wrong that you still might believe. I don't believe there are many GMs who've never encountered antagonistic players (or players with antagonistic GMs), so that's a situation you're going to have to face where some player knows you don't know the correct answer and bluffs you into believing what they want.



And then roll to see what the character knows. That's how I'd do it, but there are people who seem to want to know How the Player would do something.

The "how" is clear. Inspection. Some combination of handling and visual inspection.

Then we get into setting a DC. If I don't know the outcome of the inspection (I don't), it's not going to matter whether the player knows more than I do. The check against the DC determines how the action resolves. And dice are difficult to lie to.

It's like "I check for traps." Ok, well how? If you just stand in one place and look around, you're less likely to find one but less likely to set one off. The "how" matters. The confidence of the person taking the action isn't a factor.


-Brad

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

As it turns out, I'm such an idiot that it didn't occur to me to look for sharp stabby bits, or that a magnifying glass might be helpful. But my character has Int 17.

Obviously that's an exaggeration. But if we were talking about arcana check, it's maybe more accurate.

I'll even settle for a, 'I'm a wizard. I went to wizard school. I'm drawing upon those few lectures I wasn't drunk/asleep/high and using my wizardy understanding to work out why it's glowing and what it's doing inside the bard's rectum.''