Maybe I'm just not getting it, but this sounds toxic and terrible to me. Two players can have PCs who do the exact same act, but one gets a bonus and the other doesn't because they didn't phrase the question correctly? I want my game to have consistency. I don't want that consistency to be "pander to the DM".
D&D 5E Arguing for Advantage
Maybe I'm just not getting it, but this sounds toxic and terrible to me. Two players can have PCs who do the exact same act, but one gets a bonus and the other doesn't because they didn't phrase the question correctly? I want my game to have consistency. I don't want that consistency to be "pander to the DM".
Swarmkeeper
Hero
Yeah, you do need to be careful with these things.
Really, it comes down to “tell me what your character wants to achieve and what they are doing to achieve it. Then I’ll tell you what happens (and if the dice will be involved.)”
Players can can get as creative as they like as long as they are reasonably specific about the approach and goal for their PC. I prefer a game where players are describing what their characters are doing rather than invoking game mechanics explicitly as a substitute for those descriptions. The DM will adjudicate with game mechanics as necessary.
Further, when the players are asking a lot of questions, it’s a signal to me that I, as DM, haven’t described the current situation very well. That and/or they’ve been on their freaking phones again.
For fighting and moving around the battlemap, this sometimes makes sense. For social and mental interactions, it doesn't. I don't want to see a fighter penalized because the player physically can't riposte with a 20 Dex; likewise, I don't think a bard should be penalized because the player can't verbally riposte with a 20 Cha. For that reason, I think it's completely acceptable to just have someone invoke game mechanics like "I try Intimidation" or "I use my Actor feat to mimic" without penalty, even if there's no or minimal attempt at acting it out.
There are, of course, boundless gray areas between these two examples. Tactics with high Int characters, high Str characters knowing if they can break something, etc. The arguments can (and have) gone on for years.
TheAlkaizer
Game Designer
No, it's not a case of me having two players asking for things over and over in different ways and only one is getting it. My point is that when I make a campaign of 5E, everyone is aware (and I generally pick my players accordingly) that I run campaigns that emphasizes more roleplay, acting and storytelling than tactics and mechanics.
One approach (the meta one) does not reinforce immersion and can lead to some of the issues described in this thread. I'm not interested in having to argue with a rogue every turn to see if they have advantage. However, I am interested in them building on what's happening in the game to creatively solve issues. This is also why I don't use inspiration. The language and nature of a meta currency takes me (and some players) out of immersion.
So, when I start playing with a new player, I will absolutely reinforce behaviors that are beneficial to the type of experience that we are trying to create, and discourage behaviors that don't. Just like in many roleplaying spheres people are not fond of people turning to OOC (out of character) talks at every turn.
As a counter-example, many of the 4E campaigns that I've ran were quite different. 4E strengths lie in the tactical option and depth of its combat. This is super suited to discussing meta currency, exchanging ideas for plans and asking out-of-characters about mechanics and edge cases. It's fine, because we all agreed that that's the kind of experience we wanted. We wanted to have five players leaned over a battlemap trying to find a tactical way to win a very tough encounter.
Helpful NPC Thom
Adventurer
Typically, Burning Wheel's rolls are more consequential than D&D's. When every roll is of great importance, you have fewer, more meaningful rolls.
Swarmkeeper
Hero
I’m not saying the DM should penalize someone for saying “I try Intimidation”. As a DM, I would simply ask “ok, what is your character doing to intimidate the guard?” The whole “I try Intimidation” just isn’t specific enough to adjudicate and, to me, is uninteresting. Again, it’s as simple as: What are you doing and what are you trying to accomplish? It doesn’t need to be dressed in flowery language not does it require any special knowledge: “my barbarian puffs out his chest and speaks gruffly to the guard in an attempt to get him to stand down and let us past.” That I can work with. I want to encourage players to use their imagination so we can all picture the scene. I don’t want players treating their character sheet as buttons on a video game controller - that doesn’t produce the desired game experience for our table.
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
I actually don't see too much of that at my tables. My general view is that if you're going to have advantage on something, you need to have done the work to set it up - whether it's spending a turn going into hiding or swinging from a chandelier onto the dragon's back.
It's funny, at Gen Con 2014 at an "introducing 5e" seminar I asked the very question - what if players are constantly asking about and wheedling for advantage. The response was that advantage should be granted on exceptional circumstances, or when the rules clearly dictate it. I've tried to follow that and make it clear to my players.
The most egregious advantage mechanic situation was at an early AL table at Origins. There was a player running a halfling (monk, I think, but I could be wrong - I don't remember much more other than this and that he liked to paint makeup on his foes' corpses) and said that he automatically got advantage on any foe taller than him. I have no idea where this came from - I assume it was some weird conglomeration of rules from other editions all stacked up together in a terrible palimpsest.
It's funny, at Gen Con 2014 at an "introducing 5e" seminar I asked the very question - what if players are constantly asking about and wheedling for advantage. The response was that advantage should be granted on exceptional circumstances, or when the rules clearly dictate it. I've tried to follow that and make it clear to my players.
The most egregious advantage mechanic situation was at an early AL table at Origins. There was a player running a halfling (monk, I think, but I could be wrong - I don't remember much more other than this and that he liked to paint makeup on his foes' corpses) and said that he automatically got advantage on any foe taller than him. I have no idea where this came from - I assume it was some weird conglomeration of rules from other editions all stacked up together in a terrible palimpsest.
Asisreo
Patron Badass
That type of interaction usually would occur subconsciously for me. Not knowing the purpose of the action before its done makes me consider the factors here and now, which may lead me to not even realize that the purpose of the action was anything other than flavorful. I might, in my mind, have a picture of indirect sunlight beaming through. I'd also answer them less as a means of shutting them down and more as clarification.
However, when a player establishes the purpose of his action, I can adjudicate with their purpose in mind. Oh, the sun's positioning didn't matter so maybe the window just so happens to be in direct sunlight. Something like that.
If its something I don't think would work at all, I can easily warn them rather than retconning the last 3 turns or having them waste their action.
So for the player's sake to keep their intentions in the best possible light, I do prefer the players stating their intentions beforehand rather than hoping I'll recognize their efforts later. Plus, I have alot to keep track of and if it was something as nonmechanical as opening blinds, I might not mark it down and I'm likely to completely forget it happened.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
In my experience, "I try Intimidation" often then leads to the DM saying what the character does, perhaps after the roll: "You puff out your chest and speak gruffly to the guard and he lets you past." This is on the wrong side of ledger in my view. The players say what the characters do. The DM just narrates the results e.g. the guard lets you past.
Similar Threads
