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

[Voadam]

Is that relevant in an RPG discussion though?

Absolutely.

A character in an RPG can be roleplayed according to a player's determined concept of their character; to the stats on the character sheet (int, wis, cha, alignment, skills, background, bond, ideals, flaws, etc.); or to outside direction.

These are all different options for roleplaying in an RPG.

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.

The interplay of character with the setting and the other characters can be explored whether the player has complete autonomy on determining their thoughts and actions or not.

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.

There is a big difference in zero input and complete autonomy with a range in between.

It wouldn't resemble any RPGs I'm familiar with, though there are games like Paranoia where the PCs do have very limited autonomy.

This happens in D&D with charms and mind control. You roleplay your character with the directions from the spell whether it is charm person's regard them as a friendly acquaintance or the more directed or open ended effect of a suggestion spell.

My personal preference as both a player and a DM is for player autonomy in running their characters, but I have had fun as a player roleplaying out a situation where my demon hunter was charmed by a demon, and I can understand that people can enjoy RPG/D&D roleplaying to their character stats or to an outside mechanical or narrative direction.

I've heard people describe D&D games where they roll for persuasion/diplomacy or whatever first and then roleplay out the results of the roll and particularly having fun when they flub the roll and narrate how they get to failure.

 

[Oofta]

The OP was coming at it from a RAW standpoint, not a One True Way declaration, and in that the OP is right. As written that's the way to play the game. Kim and her players had to agree to change the rules for that to work. That's a perfectly valid way to play the game(assuming they are having fun), but is not what is written.

The OP didn't actually say that, though. The context was from a RAW standpoint.

They quote a sentence from the rules and then end with the sentence " This is the players’ sole contribution to the game, the other two thirds of the basic pattern belonging to the DM, and is the only way that the players can be said to actually be playing the game."

If that's not one true way, the OP has had ample opportunity to correct or clarify. If I'm incorrect @Hriston ever wants to clarify they should feel free to do so.

 

[HammerMan]

That isn't. Those are about the DM having the full authority, but being able to delegate if he so chooses, which has never been in question. I'm asking for a rule/guidance that explicitly grants the player the ability.

so you don't think that counts as guidance in the DMG?

 

[clearstream]

As with my response to @clearstream, maybe that's what YOU see (and maybe because you've played other games) but I'm not really going to give any weight to arguments based on claims of what the millions of people playing D&D "think".

If that is what they think...that there is a Persuade action similar to an Attack action...then they haven't actually read the rules very carefully.

As you can probably guess, I read the rules extremely carefully. They really leave this up to group preference. A matter of their play-culture and vernacular. The key is communication: players describe what they want to do. There's no rule or guideline that tells them what language they must use to achieve said describing.

Typically, with spells or class features, they will need to expressly tell their DM what mechanic they are invoking. Some class features are so esoteric that it isn't clear exactly how you would communicate your action without naming them!

@iserith has a strong opinion of how they like to run their games. So far as ability checks go, it is well supported by the text. It is not the only mode that is well supported. Even ability checks contain exceptions, like Stealth.

 

[clearstream]

I think what's being seen here, as with the other recent thread, is that if a poster thinks about an action as an ability check or an ability check as an action (not true in either case) then they may think the check is actually doing something in the context of the game world (it isn't). This is often why we see certain groups with players who push or ask to make ability checks. That's their "action" and the result does a thing in the world. Push button, get result.

In truth, an ability check is just a mechanic that the DM uses to resolve an action's outcome, when the DM determines the outcome is uncertain and there's a meaningful consequence for failure. You don't "use skills" or "make a skill check" to do a thing. There are no buttons to push as such. You just attempt to do a thing and the ability check resolves the outcome, when the DM decides an ability check is appropriate.

When this is understood to be the case by the group, then what is outlined by the OP in my experience actually starts happening at the table and questions as to whether a PC can be influenced by a "skill check" the "NPC" makes are easily answered (hint: no).

What's the ultimate goal here? To say that because a player chooses the Attack action during combat, they can say they're making ability checks in social interactions?

Thank you for dragging this back on track! It's clearly @Maxperson's fault we went off-piste.

How do you feel about ability checks using tools?

 

[iserith]

As you can probably guess, I read the rules extremely carefully. They really leave this up to group preference. A matter of their play-culture and vernacular. The key is communication: players describe what they want to do. There's no rule or guideline that tells them what language they must use to achieve said describing.

Typically, with spells or class features, they will need to expressly tell their DM what mechanic they are invoking. Some class features are so esoteric that it isn't clear exactly how you would communicate your action without naming them!

@iserith has a strong opinion of how they like to run their games. So far as ability checks go, it is well supported by the text. It is not the only mode that is well supported. Even ability checks contain exceptions, like Stealth.

If you're reading the rules "extremely carefully," then you must notice that there is no support for players calling for ability checks when declaring actions. Not a stitch. So it's a bit of a stretch in my view to say that this is "well supported."

 

[iserith]

Thank you for dragging this back on track! It's clearly @Maxperson's fault we went off-piste.

How do you feel about ability checks using tools?

I don't feel one way or another about them. Like skill proficiencies, tool proficiencies are a bonus applied to an ability check when the player declares an action with an uncertain outcome that involves the skill or tool and when it has a meaningful consequence for failure.

 

[Oofta]

As you can probably guess, I read the rules extremely carefully. They really leave this up to group preference. A matter of their play-culture and vernacular. The key is communication: players describe what they want to do. There's no rule or guideline that tells them what language they must use to achieve said describing.

Typically, with spells or class features, they will need to expressly tell their DM what mechanic they are invoking. Some class features are so esoteric that it isn't clear exactly how you would communicate your action without naming them!

@iserith has a strong opinion of how they like to run their games. So far as ability checks go, it is well supported by the text. It is not the only mode that is well supported. Even ability checks contain exceptions, like Stealth.

I have absolutely no problem with people explaining how they do things and why it works for them. Cool. It's a big part of why I use this forum. Where I have a problem is when a personal preference becomes "this is the way the rules say to play" with the implied or outright stated "if you don't do it this way you're doing it wrong".

D&D is a big tent. There's plenty of room for a plethora of play styles. Whether it's "I study the guard for slight ticks or nervousness to see if I can determine their emotional state" or they pick up a die, roll it and say "18 insight check, are they lying?" I think people should do what works for them, even if it varies by individual at the table.

 

[Bill Zebub]

How do you feel about ability checks using tools?

You didn’t ask me, but I think tool proficiencies illustrate the concept extremely well. “Land Vehicle” and “Blacksmith Tools” and “Calligraphers Set” aren’t buttons you push. There isn’t an “Herbalist Kit” action to declare.

Rather, players describes goals and approaches, and if their tool proficiency seems to apply to the narrative, they get to add their PB.

Same with language proficiencies. You don’t declare a Primordial action and roll a d20.

So why should skill proficiencies be different?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

where I agree it is nonsense, it is as much nonsense as "I want to know the true name of the wizard that hired you" being an intimidate check that if you make the kobold A)automatically knows the true name and not a fake one, and B) will talk when intimidated. I made the most ridiculas analogy I could because in the other thread when I made (a real example that happened to me as a PC) everyone dismissed it.

Well, here I think we can contrast different types of game, and their underlying effective agendas become more apparent:

In 5e there is, in principle, some sort of 'objective state' in which their is a notional kobold who 'knows' something. So, it might be seen as 'nonsense' in that system, yes. Either the action of intimidation can or cannot achieve its goal, and that is a known (to the GM) quantity. Checks are notionally only intended to adjudicate success or failure at carrying out possible tasks, it makes no sense to roll Intimidate if the kobold knows nothing.

In Dungeon World checks have nothing to do with task execution whatsoever, or little at any rate. Whether or not the PCs succeed in a task is not really germane to the agenda of the game, and THERE ARE NO FACTS. There is no kobold who has knowledge, there is only a narrative in which a kobold character will or will not be intimidated by a PC. The check is simply the 'game' part of the RPG, the 'playing to find out what happens' element. If the player says "I force the kobold to tell me the wizard's name" and gets a 10+, then his goal is achieved! The character now has the name of a wizard, and the game moves off in whatever direction that implies. If he gets a 6- then maybe the kobold won't tell, or maybe it lies, or maybe it doesn't know, or maybe it bites on its hollow poison tooth and dies, cursing the character with its last breath. Play now continues in some direction, and we have, perhaps, learned something about that PC.

4e is yet another story, where the authors kind of didn't contradict the D&D-like paradigm of GM-established backstory, which implies that there are 'facts'. Yet it also clearly evokes story game type sensibility in terms of putting at least some of the responsibility for the narrative on the players. Exactly how that plays out heavily depends on the participants. It could look a lot like 5e, except interestingly the check to intimidate the kobold is now part of an SC, and thus not learning the wizard's name is merely a setback, and the next scene should, if the game is played by RAW, focus on some other way for the PCs to achieve their goal. It could also be run in a more pure story game mode where a success on the Intimidate check means that the kobold gave up the relevant info, or at least something that moved them closer to overall success (maybe he just tells them "The dark man knows, find him in Greenvale." or whatever).

Real example: we came across a barred door, we needed to get through it. My Fighter/barbarian was already annoyed from things taking to long so I had him walk up and rip it off the wall/door. I even declarer "I'm just going to rip it off so we can get in" the DM had me roll Str/athletics, I rolled high enough and ripped it off the wall/door... and still couldn't open the door. Why you ask, because it had also a physical lock and a magical seal.

Now I was told that either the DM should(if following the rules) have ruled "automatic failure" becuse I couldn't open the door anyway, or "automatic success" you rip it off but that doesn't help. I was told that is becuse in 5e rolls are binary pass/fail and only on things that have consequences and uncertainty when taking the goal into mind. Since athletics can not open the door it is not uncertain.

Well, by classic 5e, I don't think a check was REQUIRED. By long convention GMs have traditionally obscured the backstory in order to avoid giving up information via a 'meta-channel' by asking for checks which are meaningless. I don't know if 5e's rules ever point out this technique or not, but I would say your example COULD be a case of this.