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

[5ekyu]

DEFCON1

For your description of finding npc to give info... Actually part of the reason the particular ambush reference "if the players state..." Struck me as strongly was immediately prior they described various DC result etc based on specific amounts of info gained from specific optional encounters etc.

So you had very much the clear interact and gain better options spelled out and tied to specific choices and results... Followed by the (to me) jaw dropping *just say you want advantage* words.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Sunseeker]

I am typically stingy with advantage. Telling me you are "always on the lookout" vs someone who declares their action in response to some stimuli (IE: the DM saying "You hear a twig snap not far off.") just reverses the roll vs. DC equation. The player who is "always on the lookout" gives me one roll at the start, tells me the result and this becomes the DC my mobs will need to beat to go unnoticed or whatever. The other guy who declares their action in response to an event is simply the one rolling against my DC (set by my creatures attempts to hide or whatever).

I like advantage to really matter and feel important. It's a pretty big deal in 5E.

 

[Blue]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] - I would accept something like this as a trade-off.

Want advantage because you're always looking for an ambush? Okay, but move at half speed (which means more chances for wandering monsters) because you are being cautious, doing things like halting the group to scout likely ambush-launching places, etc.

If you want to make this "my character is always looking for an ambush" then you are always suffering the penalty.

That said, a character telling me "I'm watching the cliffs to make sure nothing comes down them at us" - I'm fine giving advantage to watching the cliffs because having disadvantage into watching everything else is built right in. So maybe "I'm always watching for an ambush" is too broad, and a more specific one with it's own advantages & disadvantages is what the DM needs to negotiate.

To the deeper question, combat is partially character competence and partially player tactics. I run most things as both. A great bit of RP won't remove the need for a roll, but it might give advantage. Poor RP on the other hand might give disadvantage. I encourage players to do things and that will definitely influence the mechanical results when I run.

 

[5ekyu]

Blue

Absolutely... That was one of the things i suggested, having the advantage caution ambush come at the cost of slower travel and various probs like not catching or catching later the group they were chasing.

Trade off good, generic paraphrase of "i want advantage" bad, imo.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Not saying they take steps tp protect and how... Well... Why would a player ever not want to say that or not give you a note about "when drinking i always..." written on their character sheet? Obviously a character might be a type who doesnt care about being robbed so "roleplaying", so there is that.

You've answered the question! A player could make the effort to develop a long checklist of sensible things their character does before going drinking/delving/dancing etc. Now, ideally they'd do this because such a strategy is something their character would do - such behaviour might suggest their character was lawfully minded, in terms of planning and organisation, sensible and disciplined. Or it could be taken to extremes, with compulsive list making and checking, fretting and panicking.

Of course, if a player adopted such a strategy for a character when it was clear that is was not appropriate, we'd call them on it and ask them to either not do so or recognize the difference between the character they to be roleplay and the character they're actually roleplaying. (To my mind, they'd be attempting to, 'win' rather than, 'roleplay.) An example might be a player claiming their character is a thuggish, loud mouthed barbarian pirate with an average to low Wisdom score. Such meticulous planning and list-making seems unlikely for such a character and as such, a player claiming that said character 'always' adopted such a strategy would be challenged. Of course, if they wished to change their character to a thuggish, loud mouthed barbarian with an average to low Wisdom score who delights in make meticulous lists and developing/adopting various safety protocols in response to danger, then hey, we're all good!

Saying this, I believe it is important to note the difference between attempting something and actually doing it. Continuing with our example of the loud mouthed barbarian pirate - a player could readily claim such a character has adopted a strategy of meticulous list-making and checking. (Perhaps the character was influenced by a particularly wise and charismatic cleric when they were you, or are operating on the wise words of a loved one?) However, with their character's background, attitude and Wisdom score there is no guarantee they'd have the discipline to reliably employ their strategy*. In this case, we could ask for straight-up Wisdom checks to 'remember to make and check their list' or what have you, as needed. Ideally though, our player should take the responsibility of faithfully portraying their character on to themselves and represent their character appropriately. (And the battle between a strategy of care, discipline and foresight versus a character whose nature is chaotic, reckless and short-sighted could be rather awesome!)

*..another example would be a player roleplaying a 'devestatling charming' character who has Charisma 8 and no Persuasion skill. The player is welcome to communicate all manner of carefully planned and considered social strategies in order to net some tasty Advantage. However, with such a stat line and skill set, they should not expect such strategies to succeed, at least not reliably!

 

[5ekyu]

You've answered the question! A player could make the effort to develop a long checklist of sensible things their character does before going drinking/delving/dancing etc. Now, ideally they'd do this because such a strategy is something their character would do - such behaviour might suggest their character was lawfully minded, in terms of planning and organisation, sensible and disciplined. Or it could be taken to extremes, with compulsive list making and checking, fretting and panicking.

Of course, if a player adopted such a strategy for a character when it was clear that is was not appropriate, we'd call them on it and ask them to either not do so or recognize the difference between the character they to be roleplay and the character they're actually roleplaying. (To my mind, they'd be attempting to, 'win' rather than, 'roleplay.) An example might be a player claiming their character is a thuggish, loud mouthed barbarian pirate with an average to low Wisdom score. Such meticulous planning and list-making seems unlikely for such a character and as such, a player claiming that said character 'always' adopted such a strategy would be challenged. Of course, if they wished to change their character to a thuggish, loud mouthed barbarian with an average to low Wisdom score who delights in make meticulous lists and developing/adopting various safety protocols in response to danger, then hey, we're all good!

Saying this, I believe it is important to note the difference between attempting something and actually doing it. Continuing with our example of the loud mouthed barbarian pirate - a player could readily claim such a character has adopted a strategy of meticulous list-making and checking. (Perhaps the character was influenced by a particularly wise and charismatic cleric when they were you, or are operating on the wise words of a loved one?) However, with their character's background, attitude and Wisdom score there is no guarantee they'd have the discipline to reliably employ their strategy*. In this case, we could ask for straight-up Wisdom checks to 'remember to make and check their list' or what have you, as needed. Ideally though, our player should take the responsibility of faithfully portraying their character on to themselves and represent their character appropriately. (And the battle between a strategy of care, discipline and foresight versus a character whose nature is chaotic, reckless and short-sighted could be rather awesome!)

*..another example would be a player roleplaying a 'devestatling charming' character who has Charisma 8 and no Persuasion skill. The player is welcome to communicate all manner of carefully planned and considered social strategies in order to net some tasty Advantage. However, with such a stat line and skill set, they should not expect such strategies to succeed, at least not reliably!

Thanks Garden, but... While i get the roleplaying aspects as well as the attribute stats issues

1 I am very hesitant to require rolls to remember to do as it just means they state it aloud. Trading a list of "ask for adv/!dis" safeties for a monologue of the same over and over is not a help.

2 i do expect roleplay but i will not normally take that into forcing different game mechanics to the extent of making them make extra checks because thst can tend to discourage playing certain character persona. Role playing expectations to me is an IRL conduct issue with the player and should IMO be dealt with in the IRL arena as well... not thru in-game mechanics.

3 I would approach it instead by again keeping mechanic v mechanical or in-game v in-game. If i were going to give adv/!dis for tie-down prep, it would be at a cost of "slower to get out" requiring additional time to access when a sudden event unfolds. I also (if appropriate to setting) let some NPCs notice and think "wonder what they got worth that work" so maybe you gain for pickpockets while drunk but draw a beatdown while drunk.

The former is a sort of "self-HELP" with corresponding actions impact and the latter is the more action-reaction GM roleplay reactions type of approach.



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Thanks Garden, but... While i get the roleplaying aspects as well as the attribute stats issues

1 I am very hesitant to require rolls to remember to do as it just means they state it aloud. Trading a list of "ask for adv/!dis" safeties for a monologue of the same over and over is not a help.

2 i do expect roleplay but i will not normally take that into forcing different game mechanics to the extent of making them make extra checks because thst can tend to discourage playing certain character persona. Role playing expectations to me is an IRL conduct issue with the player and should IMO be dealt with in the IRL arena as well... not thru in-game mechanics.

3 I would approach it instead by again keeping mechanic v mechanical or in-game v in-game. If i were going to give adv/!dis for tie-down prep, it would be at a cost of "slower to get out" requiring additional time to access when a sudden event unfolds. I also (if appropriate to setting) let some NPCs notice and think "wonder what they got worth that work" so maybe you gain for pickpockets while drunk but draw a beatdown while drunk.

The former is a sort of "self-HELP" with corresponding actions impact and the latter is the more action-reaction GM roleplay reactions type of approach.



Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

To repeat/clarify - a 'Wisdom check.. ..as needed. Ideally though...'.

In other words, within the context of what I typed - we shouldn't need to resort to checks to support (enforce? Eugh..) roleplaying. However, they are an option, a tool on the tool belt. I would prefer our table not needing to resort to such mechanical measures, and so far we haven't had to. However, other tables/styles of game might prefer a more mechanical approach.

 

[5ekyu]

To repeat/clarify - a 'Wisdom check.. ..as needed. Ideally though...'.

In other words, within the context of what I typed - we shouldn't need to resort to checks to support (enforce? Eugh..) roleplaying. However, they are an option, a tool on the tool belt. I would prefer our table not needing to resort to such mechanical measures, and so far we haven't had to. However, other tables/styles of game might prefer a more mechanical approach.

Absolutely.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[iserith]

You've answered the question! A player could make the effort to develop a long checklist of sensible things their character does before going drinking/delving/dancing etc. Now, ideally they'd do this because such a strategy is something their character would do - such behaviour might suggest their character was lawfully minded, in terms of planning and organisation, sensible and disciplined. Or it could be taken to extremes, with compulsive list making and checking, fretting and panicking.

Of course, if a player adopted such a strategy for a character when it was clear that is was not appropriate, we'd call them on it and ask them to either not do so or recognize the difference between the character they to be roleplay and the character they're actually roleplaying. (To my mind, they'd be attempting to, 'win' rather than, 'roleplay.) An example might be a player claiming their character is a thuggish, loud mouthed barbarian pirate with an average to low Wisdom score. Such meticulous planning and list-making seems unlikely for such a character and as such, a player claiming that said character 'always' adopted such a strategy would be challenged. Of course, if they wished to change their character to a thuggish, loud mouthed barbarian with an average to low Wisdom score who delights in make meticulous lists and developing/adopting various safety protocols in response to danger, then hey, we're all good!

Saying this, I believe it is important to note the difference between attempting something and actually doing it. Continuing with our example of the loud mouthed barbarian pirate - a player could readily claim such a character has adopted a strategy of meticulous list-making and checking. (Perhaps the character was influenced by a particularly wise and charismatic cleric when they were you, or are operating on the wise words of a loved one?) However, with their character's background, attitude and Wisdom score there is no guarantee they'd have the discipline to reliably employ their strategy*. In this case, we could ask for straight-up Wisdom checks to 'remember to make and check their list' or what have you, as needed. Ideally though, our player should take the responsibility of faithfully portraying their character on to themselves and represent their character appropriately. (And the battle between a strategy of care, discipline and foresight versus a character whose nature is chaotic, reckless and short-sighted could be rather awesome!)

Speaking for myself, I think judging whether someone's roleplaying is "inappropriate" based on some unsettled distinction about the character's ability scores is dangerous territory. The player is the one who determines what it thinks and says and how it acts. Everyone else can butt out as far as I'm concerned. It's not fair in my view to place arbitrary constraints on one's own roleplaying and characterization based on something like ability scores and then assume those same constraints apply to everyone else. There are no rules requiring this where ability scores are concerned and the place in D&D 5e for encouraging specific characterization is in the Inspiration mechanic.

Of course, that doesn't mean a group couldn't establish a specific table rule about what it means to play a particular Wisdom score or whatever and then ask the players to buy in on that. For me, I don't see any particular upside to it that overrides letting people play as they will and rewarding them when they play to established personal characteristics via Inspiration.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Speaking for myself, I think judging whether someone's roleplaying is "inappropriate" based on some unsettled distinction about the character's ability scores is dangerous territory. The player is the one who determines what it thinks and says and how it acts. Everyone else can butt out as far as I'm concerned. It's not fair in my view to place arbitrary constraints on one's own roleplaying and characterization based on something like ability scores and then assume those same constraints apply to everyone else. There are no rules requiring this where ability scores are concerned and the place in D&D 5e for encouraging specific characterization is in the Inspiration mechanic.

Of course, that doesn't mean a group couldn't establish a specific table rule about what it means to play a particular Wisdom score or whatever and then ask the players to buy in on that. For me, I don't see any particular upside to it that overrides letting people play as they will and rewarding them when they play to established personal characteristics via Inspiration.

I believe my examples make it clear that its not happening arbitrarily - and every effort is made to be fair. However, some folks will insist on making decisions based on player-perceived advantage, regardless if it is appropriate for their character, such as the classic low-charisma, no socials skill character being played as a debonair charmer by the player. Again, they're welcome to try but simply coming up with a good idea as a player doesn't mean their character has the stats, tools, skills and/or background to succeed reliably. And even then, this only become a problem if the player complains about the lack of reliability - after all, they had the chance to choose different stats, tools, skills and/or backgrounds that would benefit our hypothetical character's social role and for whatever reason, chose not to.

Thankfully, we have a solid table with understanding folks - but its not always been like this and when a DM doesn't wish to take on the responsibility of arbitrating such situation then introducing a mechanical element can be an option. One advantage being that, by removing the DM - the 'human' element and letting the dice 'call the shots', the drama that some tables seem to find in personal confrontation can be lessened. Personally, having tried such methods and gained mix success, I'm in favour of the DM simply stepping up but each table and DM's style are different.