D&D 5E Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure about stat/skill checks in 5e. I think they are closer to being something like player-initiated suggestions that the GM might then have regard to when narrating consequences.

There's certainly a reason I didn't include them in my illustrative list!

Definitely how I see them. That cited text of 5e DMG P245 is pretty informative there.

"Whether the adventurers can shift a creature's
attitude is up to you. You decide whether the adventurer
have successfully couched their statements in terms
that matter to the creature."

Next the DMG explains that players don't have an understanding of the NPC's personality, but they MIGHT be able to deduce it, and they could be wrong.
"After interacting with a creature long enough to get
a sense of its personality traits and characteristics
through conversation, an adventurer can attempt a
Wisdom (Insight) check to uncover one of the creature's
characteristics. You set the DC. A check that fails by
10 or more might misidentify a characteristic, so you
should provide a false characteristic or invert one of
the creature's existing characteristics."

Notice that this is entirely up to the GM, can the player make this check at all? What results would produce accurate information, and which would not? These are all answered by the GM, so in effect the availability of the check and any consequences are entirely under GM control, the players have no authority here at all, just an invite to fish for GM allowances, which might even be met with deception!

"When the adventurers get to the point of their
request, demand, or suggestion- or if you decide the
conversation has run its course- call for a Charisma
check. Any character who has actively participated in
the conversation can make the check. Depending on
how the adventurers handled the conversation , the
Persuasion, Deception , or Intimidation skill might apply
to the check."

So, here again we have the GM's decision to invoke a check, it isn't even called for by a player, nor do they appear to have input into the type of check. Presumably in good faith the GM will ask for a type of check which is commensurate with the actions performed which constituted the 'conversation'.

I mean, this IS in some sense a process, it is less 'anything goes' than nothing at all. We would just contrast it with an SC where the number of checks is predetermined, and the end states are established at the start of the process (though granting the players may not know precisely what they will be, or they might be altered somewhat by the intervening fiction).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why would a player declare that action unless something in the fiction (eg a strong wind?) made it conceivable that a cow was in the tree?

Exactly! The fallacy is an attempt to reductio Story Game style play by ignoring its cardinal characteristic, which is that everything follows from the fiction! If the game is played AS INTENDED, certainly in the case of 4e, I wouldn't even consider this a valid action declaration unless it was fictionally plausible. Dungeon World would likewise simply treat it as an inconsequential move, and the GM would likely respond with a hard move of their own, "Unfortunately the carnivorous tree has now grasped you in its claw-like branches..."

 

[Neonchameleon]

Nope. 4e had very specific actions called "skill Powers". Some even had limited uses by short rest.

And 5e has very specific actions called "spells". All of which are limited by short or long rest.

The idea that a 5e character casting a spell doesn't jump straight to the mechanical level is one I find confusing. And this is a big part of the magic user/muggle divide in 5e.

 

[Charlaquin]

What about Inspiration? It may be optional and perhaps not used a ton, but this is an explicit rule which provides for direct mechanical impact on the game state by the player. It is not much, but it does contradict the "and that is all that is allowed."

Good point! There are optional rules in the DMG that let a player assume narrative control at times, including by spending Inspiration.

 

[Maxperson]

I can't see those posts, but I don't need to. They can't. Ultimately it all comes back to the DM permitting it. Some people aren't going to like that, but it is what it is.

Yes. @pemerton's examples were of actions that could lead to mechanics. They aren't actually invoking rules, though. The player declares an attack, which invokes an attempt to hit the enemy. They don't call for an attack roll.

 

[Maxperson]

So at your table you maintain symmetry among participants? Essentially disregarding the roles and basic patterns described in the books?

What do you mean? The rules give both the player and the DM the right to declare with certainty the success or failure of social exchanges, or declare uncertainty which leads to an ability check. Nothing on page 244 changes that. Nothing is ignored that I can tell.

 

[Maxperson]

That's a shame. They cited text instructing players to invoke or enact rules.

No. He cited text of players declaring actions. Rules that perhaps spring from those declarations are not the player invoking rules.

 

[Nefermandias]

And 5e has very specific actions called "spells". All of which are limited by short or long rest.

The idea that a 5e character casting a spell doesn't jump straight to the mechanical level is one I find confusing. And this is a big part of the magic user/muggle divide in 5e.

Spells and feats do indeed jump straight to the mechanical resolution level with minimal input from the DM required. I don't think anyone here was claiming otherwise.

 

[Cadence]

It feels like Character Creation (Part I of the PhB) is something players are certainly involved in in the game beyond "roleplaying". Is that just "set up" and not "playing"?

Whether the rest of the actions of the players is limited to roleplaying as described by OP seems to be up to the DM by RAW, but RAW explicitly allows it to be expanded.

The DMG notes that "You can also lean on the other players to help you with [...] world-building." pg. 4

Page 26 of the DMG talks about "Involving the Characters" and coming up with npcs and other things in the characters background.

This has a very long tradition in D&D.

"As part of setting up Hommlet, Gygax assigned players responsibility for some of the town residents and establishments: Dave Arneson, for example, specified the trader who lived in the far northwest of the town, the first house on the road when traveling from nearby Verbonbonc." - Game Wizards, page 86, describing a game run by Gygax in 1976.

Presumably players who want that extra player involvement will pick a DM that wants it too if they have potential DMs to choose among.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes. @pemerton's examples were of actions that could lead to mechanics. They aren't actually invoking rules, though. The player declares an attack, which invokes an attempt to hit the enemy. They don't call for an attack roll.

And I would side with anyone who asserted that it would be a pretty degenerate case, generally, in 5e where a GM subverted the combat system in a really overt way (and lets not worry about things like Illusionism type force, like fudging rolls at this point). This is the point where 5e gets CLOSER to systematic, if you take a swing at some monster, the way the mechanics treat that IS fairly cut and dried, and likewise the deployment of spells and similar things. Outside of combat, then spells seem to have a stronger formal 'valence' than other actions, as they often have fairly standard defined effects which can't easily be subverted in most cases without making a mockery of the game aspect of things.

And 4e can be read as a game that simply extended this to more parts of the game and to all PCs. Frankly this is an element of games like PbtAs as well, though the constraining mechanisms are quite different. 'Classic' D&D just doesn't like to do it.

One question is, in terms of RP, is your experience of/ability to RP degraded by deployment of what might be termed GM Force? I'd say the scope becomes more limited as we're basically talking about restricting the player to a smaller field of action.