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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I disagree; in that a stage actor who is forced to follow a script and movement directions, etc. is still roleplaying, i.e. playing a role.

Being put on extremely hard rails by the DM doesn't stop or prevent roleplaying, it merely restricts where that roleplaying can go; in the same vein as the restrictions put on a stage actor who has to follow a script.

Is that relevant in an RPG discussion though? Sure, an actor's ACTING OUT A ROLE includes the conveying of emotional states and other information about the role to the audience and presumably evoking some sort of sympathy. That is different from deciding the character's actions.

I don't think that RPGs generally are PRIMARILY concerned with this sort of thing. They are more about exploring the interplay of character with the setting and the other characters, and finding out what happens. IMHO that cannot meaningfully happen where the player isn't able to have input into his character's actions, although I guess you could have SOMETHING. It wouldn't resemble any RPGs I'm familiar with, though there are games like Paranoia where the PCs do have very limited autonomy.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I'm not suggesting that the DM subvert the system. What I'm saying is that in 5e the player does not call for attack rolls. The player states the intent for his PC to attack a creature. That's all the the player calls for. The mechanic naturally follows, but that isn't the same as the player calling for it. The same holds true for every 5e mechanic. The players do not call for a mechanic to happen. They call on the PC to cast a spell, then the mechanics generally follow from the action declaration. And so on.

One question is, in terms of RP, is your experience of/ability to RP degraded by deployment of what might be termed GM Force?

Since I define DM force as removal of player agency, yes. I'm not talking about valid reductions, like charm spells or dominate spells which take away player choice. I'm talking more about things like overt railroading and illusionism(subtle railroading).

 

[Lanefan]

Is that relevant in an RPG discussion though?

Yes.

Sure, an actor's ACTING OUT A ROLE includes the conveying of emotional states and other information about the role to the audience and presumably evoking some sort of sympathy. That is different from deciding the character's actions.

Roleplaying is roleplaying, and covers a broad swath of activities beyond the game table: stage acting, screen acting, LARP, even some aspects of one's day to day life when one is assuming a role or persona that isn't really "you".

I don't think that RPGs generally are PRIMARILY concerned with this sort of thing. They are more about exploring the interplay of character with the setting and the other characters, and finding out what happens. IMHO that cannot meaningfully happen where the player isn't able to have input into his character's actions, although I guess you could have SOMETHING. It wouldn't resemble any RPGs I'm familiar with, though there are games like Paranoia where the PCs do have very limited autonomy.

An RPG where the players had no input other than literally reading the words off a pre-written script wouldn't be much of a game, no argument there. But were it done for the entertainment of others it would, I think, come under roleplaying.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes.

Roleplaying is roleplaying, and covers a broad swath of activities beyond the game table: stage acting, screen acting, LARP, even some aspects of one's day to day life when one is assuming a role or persona that isn't really "you".

An RPG where the players had no input other than literally reading the words off a pre-written script wouldn't be much of a game, no argument there. But were it done for the entertainment of others it would, I think, come under roleplaying.

OK, though I think in general we are concerned here with RPGs, so...

 

[Bill Zebub]

One of the players in my campaign, who usually chooses to play bards, finds the idea of asymmetry between PCs and NPCs unreasonable. He argues that if he can do it to NPCs, they should be able to do it to him.

This, I think, is the fundamental error. Or "difference", if we want to avoid any claim to RAW/RAI support.

There is no "do it" here, or at least no "do it to" with an implied victim. The Bard doesn't "do something to" the NPC they persuade. "Persuade" is not a mechanical action, "Intimidate" is not a mechanical action, and "Deceive" is not a mechanical action.

The play loop rules are there to help DMs adjudicate roleplaying in the absence of specific rules. The player proposes a course of action...a goal and an approach...for which there isn't a specific mechanic. The DM tries to determine if they will succeed, and if they aren't sure (which can also mean if they just aren't sure they can adjudicate impartially), they can assign a DC and call for a roll.

So in the case of a Bard persuading a King, the DM's job is to, as fairly as possible, assess the likelihood of success. And that involves knowing their NPCs, what their motivations and personality and foibles are like, to determine that possibility. In other words, the DM is roleplaying the NPC. It is roleplaying when they say, "No, sorry, there's no way you're going to persuade him of that." It is roleplaying when they say, "Yes! The King jumps to his feet and agrees!" And it is still roleplaying when they say, "Hmm...that's tricky. Let me see a Charisma roll; you can use either Deception or Persuasion, depending on how you want to play it. 18 or higher and he'll agree."

Again, the Bard didn't do anything to the NPC. The Bard just did something, with the objective of getting the NPC to do something, and the DM determined how the NPC responded to that something. Roleplaying, not mechanics.

(EDIT: and I want to point out that in stating goal and approach, the goal...such as 'convince the king to let me marry his heir'...can be mistaken as being the "it" in "do it to the NPC". But the purpose of including the goal is just to avoid misunderstandings and ensure that the DM understands what it is you're trying to accomplish. There's no binding mechanical effect that springs into being with the declaration of the goal. This, by the way, is also @HammerMan's mistake in his example of "I climb the tree to find the cow.")

So to reverse that process, and having the NPC try to persuade the PC, without making it completely symmetric by swapping roles in the play loop, is an affront to the basic rules of roleplaying. Now it's the merchant trying to persuade the PC, so it's the player who should be determining how likely it is for their character to be persuaded (and, yes, asking for a roll if that information would help them decide.)

But it's a fundamental breakdown in roleplaying for the DM to say, "The merchant is going to try to persuade you to pay 100g. And based on your character's personality, background, weaknesses, and what I think their emotional state is after that last fight, I'm going to set the DC at 18." That's the DM roleplaying the character. The player's character. And it will never happen at my table, nor will I long play at a table where it does happen.

 

[clearstream]

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.

As @pemerton pointed to:

When you take your action on your turn, you can take one of the actions presented here, an action you gained from your class or a special feature, or an action that you improvise.

4. Take turns. Each participant in the battle takes a turn in initiative order.

With this action, you make one melee or ranged attack.

These rules read that the player gets a turn and when they do they can invoke an action (say Attack) and with an Attack action they make one melee or ranged attack. They then:

1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.

Etc.

The combat section is written with a high-degree of mechanical agency for players. @AbdulAlhazred over generalizes in reaching their conclusions. And seeing as parts of the text tells players to invoke rules (choose an action in combat) it isn't right to say that they cannot. As @AbdulAlhazred points out, DM is empowered in the text to override, alter or even ignore anything PCs invoke, but I would not put that in terms of valency. It's laid out that the emerging narrative is intended to have a valency to player invocations and actions. Just as how things go is intended to have a valency with the core book text. DM's supported most in following that, but endorsed to do as they like.

 

[clearstream]

There is no "do it" here, or at least no "do it to" with an implied victim. The Bard doesn't "do something to" the NPC they persuade. "Persuade" is not a mechanical action, "Intimidate" is not a mechanical action, and "Deceive" is not a mechanical action.

The play loop rules are there to help DMs adjudicate roleplaying in the absence of specific rules. The player proposes a course of action...a goal and an approach...for which there isn't a specific mechanic. The DM tries to determine if they will succeed, and if they aren't sure (which can also mean if they just aren't sure they can adjudicate impartially), they can assign a DC and call for a roll.

So in the case of a Bard persuading a King, the DM's job is to, as fairly as possible, assess the likelihood of success. And that involves knowing their NPCs, what their motivations and personality and foibles are like, to determine that possibility. In other words, the DM is roleplaying the NPC. It is roleplaying when they say, "No, sorry, there's no way you're going to persuade him of that." It is roleplaying when they say, "Yes! The King jumps to his feet and agrees!" And it is still roleplaying when they say, "Hmm...that's tricky. Let me see a Charisma roll; you can use either Deception or Persuasion, depending on how you want to play it. 18 or higher and he'll agree."

Again, the Bard didn't do anything to the NPC. The Bard just did something, with the objective of getting the NPC to do something, and the DM determined how the NPC responded to that something. Roleplaying, not mechanics.

(EDIT: and I want to point out that in stating goal and approach, the goal...such as 'convince the king to let me marry his heir'...can be mistaken as being the "it" in "do it to the NPC". But the purpose of including the goal is just to avoid misunderstandings and ensure that the DM understands what it is you're trying to accomplish. There's no binding mechanical effect that springs into being with the declaration of the goal. This, by the way, is also @HammerMan's mistake in his example of "I climb the tree to find the cow.")

I think the player is envisioning that their choices at character creation and advancement matter. So they expect if they are proficient and expert with Persuasion that this will matter. They have a high rules knowledge and anticipate that given they skillfully do the things laid out, they will most likely benefit from their proficiency and expertise in the form of more likely succeeding than failing in persuading the King, given it is as to some matter that I have confirmed they might be swayed on. They expect their chances to be better than the chances of the fighter, who has put nothing into abilities and skills that bear on social interaction.

Let's clone them so we have B' and F' who are NPCs. Reciprocally then, the player expects B' to be more likely to persuade the party fighter of something, than F'. This is not the case if the rules are simply disregarded. DMs neutrality does considerable work here, as DM decides on rules and resolutions impartially. They have no stake in B' and F'. Player however has a stake in B.

Certainty is binary: it isn't impinged on by greater or lesser ability. This is something helped by DM calling for a check even if that check is only informative. Because it can inform about how compelling B' is able to be, compared with F'. Further, and following something @AbdulAlhazred said, I believe that a compelling purpose for having game mechanics in our RP is to inform our narrative.

DM narrates results, yes, but for me ideally players are also narrating results (their responses and further choices), building a shared narrative.

So to reverse that process, and having the NPC try to persuade the PC, without making it completely symmetric by swapping roles in the play loop, is an affront to the basic rules of roleplaying. Now it's the merchant trying to persuade the PC, so it's the player who should be determining how likely it is for their character to be persuaded (and, yes, asking for a roll if that information would help them decide.)

But it's a fundamental breakdown in roleplaying for the DM to say, "The merchant is going to try to persuade you to pay 100g. And based on your character's personality, background, weaknesses, and what I think their emotional state is after that last fight, I'm going to set the DC at 18." That's the DM roleplaying the character. The player's character. And it will never happen at my table, nor will I long play at a table where it does happen.

I share your feelings on that case! They way I will put it is that when I read the text it does not say that roles in 5th edition should be symmetrical. From the outset, and all through, the role of player as player is differentiated from the role of player as DM. Perhaps less so than in previous versions, and with more awareness of opportunities for shared creation.

One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee.

It seems to me one player is given a different status, and symmetry is broken.

 

[Lanefan]

There is no "do it" here, or at least no "do it to" with an implied victim. The Bard doesn't "do something to" the NPC they persuade. "Persuade" is not a mechanical action, "Intimidate" is not a mechanical action, and "Deceive" is not a mechanical action.

The play loop rules are there to help DMs adjudicate roleplaying in the absence of specific rules. The player proposes a course of action...a goal and an approach...for which there isn't a specific mechanic. The DM tries to determine if they will succeed, and if they aren't sure (which can also mean if they just aren't sure they can adjudicate impartially), they can assign a DC and call for a roll.

So in the case of a Bard persuading a King, the DM's job is to, as fairly as possible, assess the likelihood of success.

Except that to all appearances in the players' eyes there IS a mechanic! It's right there on the character sheet where it says "Persuasion".

If the mechanic's shown there but has no functional purpose for the player, it's a waste of time and space. Get it off the sheet and move it DM-side (or abandon it completely, better yet).

Either that, or give the player-side mechanic some actual teeth (PC <--> NPC both ways) and make it useful while at the same time accepting that everyone's ability to freely roleplay will be occasionally compromised by these mechanics.

 

[clearstream]

Either that, or give the player-side mechanic some actual teeth (PC <--> NPC both ways) and make it useful while at the same time accepting that everyone's ability to freely roleplay will be occasionally compromised by these mechanics.

It has teeth even if those teeth are only to inform players that Magnifico the Bard is a far more compelling orator than Trunco the Fighter. Thus informing the shared emergent narrative.

One can treat 185 as a rule if one likes, and still benefit from DM calling for a check (exercising their authority over rules and resolutions), as that will produce results that stochastically inform the subsequent narrative even if it does not force player choices.

 

[Oofta]

It comes back to a simple question. At Kim's table, Kim and all of their players have agreed that occasionally an NPC can use persuasion or intimidation to determine a PC's thoughts and actions.

According to the OP, those players are no longer role playing and can no longer be said to be playing the game.

While I'm not sure I'd want to play at Kim's table, saying that they are no longer playing the game is one true wayism to me.