D&D 5E Character play vs Player play

[ExploderWizard]

Why even have mental stats if they aren't going to do anything?

I may be able to solve any given puzzle, if I try, but sometimes that's not in-character. I like to play dumb fighter types who go up and hit things with a club, and nothing breaks immersion quite as much as the party idiot explaining to the wizard and cleric how to get past a complicated series of door locks.

Players do not exist within the game world. Characters do.

Characters don't sit around the table looking for mentally engaging gameplay- players do.

My character cannot enjoy solving a problem, it is just a bunch of numbers & notes on a piece of paper. I am at a loss why anyone would ever consider such a thing more important than the real human beings at the table.

IMHO engaging play is important. A lobotomized monkey can sit at the table and roll a die when prompted. If everything is about the character then the player is little more than a meat sack die rolling app. To me, such a game would feel more like I was playing the old classic arcade game Dragon's Lair where I would largely be a spectator until that little light flashed at which point I would mash a button to continue the story. That game had great graphics for it's time but it wasn't very engaging.

Mental stats do plenty for the character. Remembering a clue (especially if it's been a month for the player and only hours for the character) INT check. Perception uses the senses of the character (WIS). There is no need to make the stats pull extra duty and do the real time thinking for the player.

If you do, why does the player technically need to be present? Without a chance for me personally to directly influence play I would see no reason to show up.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There is no need to make the stats pull extra duty and do the real time thinking for the player.

If you do, why does the player technically need to be present? Without a chance for me personally to directly influence play I would see no reason to show up.

It's the player's job to interpret the character - to turn it from a stat sheet into a person. To make decisions, based on the presented information, and based on how the character would react to them. A game is commonly defined as "a series of one or more meaningful decisions".

Puzzles aren't a decision, though. Puzzles are just a measure of brute-strength mental power. There's no interesting choice involved. You might have an interesting choice about what to do with the solution of a puzzle - whether to share it with others, bluff your way if you don't know, etc - but the puzzle itself is not a decision.

(The worst type of puzzle is one which involves a magical phenomenon of unknown function, where the player is expected to solve something based on information which doesn't exist in the player's world, and which only the character might possibly be able to guess at. These are far, far too common in published adventures.)

 

[Elf Witch]

As a DM I prefer that players try things before rolling dice. But I do understand that sometimes a player need the help of the dice. Take diplomacy I can understand why many DMs hate it. Especially when it used this way I roll my diplomacy I got a 20 now the king gives me what I want. But I get that not all players in real life can be charismatic and I don't think it is fair to say they can't ever play a bard or a highly charismatic PC.

I let players either choose to roll or role play it out. If they choose to roll they have to still tell me what they are going to say the points they are going to bring up.

With puzzles I will do the same thing if I see they are struggling then I will ask for an intelligence check to see if they can figure it out. But again not even trying bugs the living daylights out of me.

As a DM I will speak up if I think a player is about to do something really stupid when their PC would not. I will also call out a player who used intelligence or charisma as a dump stat because they counted on their natural real life abilities to cover it.

 

[KarinsDad]

As for dice every door, that player is looking to mitigate traps entirely. You shouldn't acquiesce so easily unless you don't want traps in your game. Just have them tell you the check result. "10 to find traps in this room." It's just as quick as anything else and keeps you from being responsible if you forget. "What did you roll for traps in this room?" You should ask that anyway from time to time just to keep them guessing...

I just find it quicker and less annoying to ask 3 times in an entire dungeon of 25 rooms and a single trapped door than it is to hear them say it 25 times.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

A quick rough summary of the GUMSHOE philosophy would be:
(1) Pedestrian efforts by the players themselves should provide enough clues to get the PCs to the next necessary bus stop in the plot.
(2) A moderate degree of inspiration by the players in how to use skills should provide a few bonus clues. (Great inspiration can provide more. Make something up if it feels right GM.)
(3) It is on the players to interpret the clues (where it does not take that much to achieve #1)
(4) Yes, there are rewards for genuine player insights that lead to smart play, some examples would be:
(a) a stylish success that puts the PC in a very flattering light
(b) insights into the back story of the mystery (which in some cases might assist in interpreting other clues)
(c) foreshadowing of what is to unfold
(d) specific information that may provide tactical advantages in future scenes


Under this philosophy, things like a cipher the players must break into to move forward are a no-no, as a rule of thumb. (Obviously some particular players do love that kind of thing.)

Under this philosophy, expecting the players to ask about the purple wood of a bow/staff would be discouragede. How is the player supposed to know that the PC would find that color of wood weird in a world of unicorns, elves, and fireballs?

 

[Lerysh]

I just find it quicker and less annoying to ask 3 times in an entire dungeon of 25 rooms and a single trapped door than it is to hear them say it 25 times.

This is exactly what passive perception was invented for.

 

[KarinsDad]

This is exactly what passive perception was invented for.

While this might be true and while passive perception works mechanically (i.e. it saves time due to a bunch of rolls not having to be made at the table), it does an extremely poor job of being fair.

Say, for example, that a given PC has a passive perception of 13.

Any trap that the DM assigns a DC of 13 or less has 100% chance of being found.
Any trap that the DM assigns a DC of 14 or more has a 0% chance of being found.

So whether a given trap can be found or not is determined by the DM, it's not determined by the player/PC getting lucky or unlucky.

I've always found passive perception (and passive insight) to be terrible rules disguised as time saving rules.


In 5E, our DM added a house rule for surprise rounds that the surprised side rolls perception instead of using passive perception.

The reason is the same as above.

Per group of monsters using core rules (i.e. a group of monsters is any monster that has the same passive perception), that group is either 0% surprised, or 100% surprised.

With the house rule, every single monster has a chance of being surprised and of being not surprised. The reason for the house rule was due to how potent surprise is in 5e. Since the ambushing side now has all of their actions (and not just a standard action like in 4E), surprise is a lot more potent now. At our table, the PCs were wiping through groups of monsters without even breaking a sweat or using up resources. It was so lopsided.

But, the house rule cuts both ways. When PCs surprise monsters, it waters down how potent their attack is. But, the same occurs for when monsters surprise PCs. Combat becomes a little bit less swingy.

 

[Hussar]

Maybe vary the DC by a d6 or d8. Evens add to the DC, odds subtract. Compare that to the passive perception check of the PC and you still save lots of time without having to give away the presence of anything.

 

[KarinsDad]

Maybe vary the DC by a d6 or d8. Evens add to the DC, odds subtract. Compare that to the passive perception check of the PC and you still save lots of time without having to give away the presence of anything.

That would work for normal passive perception. It doesn't work for surprise rounds (unless you roll the D6 and D8 for every potentially surprised creature and at that point, you might as well just roll normal perception for them instead).

One nice thing about how my DM runs surprise is that once in a blue moon, the PCs can surprise a room full of foes and several of the mooks are not surprised, but the big bad is surprised. To me, that's feels more organic than if the big bad is surprised, the mooks are always surprised. It's a rare event, but one that is fun when it happens. It's also nice that often, some of the same type of creature is surprised, some are not. It feels so stilted when using rules that if one goblin is surprised, they are all surprised. If one goblin is not surprised, none of them are surprised.

 

[pedro2112]

This right here, this is bad. It's a fundamental way of DMing that I don't think you understand. When player's ideas are shot down, they get frustrated, when players get frustrated the game slows down and is generally less fun, when the game slows down and is less fun you inevitably wind up at "What do I need to roll to pass this thing".

But what if the NPC actually doesn't have a beard? I do agree that nerfing someone's PC by requiring them to use the Player's capabilities instead of their PC stats is wrong, but your job as a DM is to describe the world to the PCs. If the NPC doesn't have a beard, not changing that because a PC want's the NPC to have a beard is is not "bad," rather it is correct.