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

[clearstream]

Ok, so let me re-state the argument(s) in bold, but please tell me if I'm making a mistake.

- The player might disregard the narrative, as determined by the DM's dice roll for the NPC
- DMs are neutral, so they can use their power to enforce rules to make sure that narrative is considered in the player's action declarations.

Is that accurate?

Hmm... you have lasered in on a speculation that I'm not committed to, and ignored the argument that I am committed to. To be fair, I didn't differentiate clearly enough between them. Anyway, it would be far more faithful to my argument to bold the sentences immediately preceding:

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'

So we are looking for an informative difference between charming B' and charmless F'. We use a stochastic mechanic to capture the dynamic and uncertain nature of the real world. (The difference between potential and performance, at a task.) Perhaps in our persuading Olympics, B' ought to easily beat F' to the 20 yard line, but it can happen that on this day, F' gets there first. The stochastic nature of the mechanic ensures that B's edges are not forgotten (felt in the minimums and maximums, and outcomes over trials.)

There may be other consequences riding on it, but let's ignore those for now. Having agreed to the adjudication by the party fighter over their heated dispute over the last butterscotch in the tin, B' and F' are going to take turns persuading F of their arguments. DM is playing B' and F' seeing as they are NPCs. Contemplating this scene, as a DM I really do not see myself acting it out. Besides, it's only a butterscotch, how much time do I really want to throw at it!? (Please adjust the stakes to whatever for you would be enough to spend a few minutes on it, but not justify more than that.)

That scenario? What do you think?

 

[clearstream]

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.

Surely a character applies a tool though?

PC: I use my disguise kit to apply a disguise.

Pretty close to pressing a button.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Perhaps you might be able to see though, that it need not seem that way to all groups. And the text supports them as well to simply say - I use my thieve's tools on the lock. I'm no locksmith. I can't tell you what the approach is. My rogue character knows, though.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Hmm... you have lasered in on a speculation that I'm not committed to, and ignored the argument that I am committed to. To be fair, I didn't differentiate clearly enough between them. Anyway, it would be far more faithful to my argument to bold the sentences immediately preceding:


So we are looking for an informative difference between charming B' and charmless F'. We use a stochastic mechanic to capture the dynamic and uncertain nature of the real world. (The difference between potential and performance, at a task.) Perhaps in our persuading Olympics, B' ought to easily beat F' to the 20 yard line, but it can happen that on this day, F' gets there first. The stochastic nature of the mechanic ensures that B's edges are not forgotten (felt in the minimums and maximums, and outcomes over trials.)

There may be other consequences riding on it, but let's ignore those for now. Having agreed to the adjudication by the party fighter over their heated dispute over the last butterscotch in the tin, B' and F' are going to take turns persuading F of their arguments. DM is playing B' and F' seeing as they are NPCs. Contemplating this scene, as a DM I really do not see myself acting it out. Besides, it's only a butterscotch, how much time do I really want to throw at it!? (Please adjust the stakes to whatever for you would be enough to spend a few minutes on it, but not justify more than that.)

That scenario? What do you think?

Oh, sorry, I skipped over this step and went to the next step.

My response is: the DM will likely factor B's proficiency into the narrative, and if the DM makes a roll to add color, or if the player requests a roll to resolve uncertainty, then B's proficiency (and attribute) will increase the result of the roll by 2 or more. Ergo, B is more charming, according to the mechanics of the game.*

The more interesting part of that scenario is what happens next. How does the player choose to use that information? Which is why I skipped ahead to the part about trust.

*EDIT: I'll add that I can understand how somebody might say, "Except with 16 Cha and proficiency that's 'only' +5, and F could easily roll higher than B, so that's not really as charming as the narrative suggests!" Um, yeah. And that's how the game works, for better or worse. Which is another reason why I think the DM should skip the mechanics and just narrate somebody super-duper charming, then give the player authority to respond to that as they like.

 

[iserith]

Surely a character applies a tool though?

PC: I use my disguise kit to apply a disguise.

Pretty close to pressing a button.

It is not because "I use my disguise kit to apply a disguise" is an action declaration in the fiction, a statement of what the character is doing (albeit vague - what kind of disguise and for what purpose?). Just because it contains the words "disguise kit" doesn't mean the player is invoking an ability check. Like any other action declaration, the DM must now assess the task to see if it has an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure. If it does, an ability check is appropriate.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Becky and Ross (both current players 1 current DM, both have DMed) do this all the time. Becky runs some of the best story driven games I have ever played... Ross is hit or miss but tries. You know what they both have in common? They don't like having to use there storyteller skills on trying to persuade, intimidate, or desept PCs, they would rather it be IN GAME narrative driven not OUT OF GAME skill.

I go back and forth so does Kurt, Chris, and Amber. Sometimes to save time, sometimes (I can say for me most times) because the Players through a curve ball and I am not making things up on the fly.

And I 'play to see what happens', so a check will be generated, but it isn't to 'see if you can do X' or 'see if the NPC can do X', it is just to see what the outcome is, did the PC achieve their goal? So, cast in classic DW terms, 6- the king throws you out on your ear, 7+ he offers his niece's hand in marriage, 10+ you get the princess. I mean, OK, maybe the princess is deemed 'impossible', but that would have to mean it either breaks established backstory (which can only be established IN PLAY, no secret backstory) or it breaks genre/storytelling conventions in a bad way. The PC's CHA will effect this check, as would maybe some Bard move etc. but mostly the Parley move can only happen when you have something the other guy needs, wants, or is afraid of "When you have leverage on a GM character and manipulate them..." If you just cold call the king and ask for something, it isn't a specific move, its just RP. In fact the GM should almost surely respond with a move, probably soft, which is going to escalate the situation. "The king laughs and replies that any hero who can bring him the head of the Great Dragon can marry whomever they wish, even his daughter."

 

[HammerMan]

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.

nope... success and failure can both change the state of the game without giving the desired result...
You can climb the tree and find no clue
You can tear the bar off and still not be able to open the door
You can intimidate the kobold and still not get him to tell you.

Just because something can go either way (uncertain) doesn't mean you get what you want...

an action can be in question (and need a roll) and still not be what you need to accomplish your desired goal.

In Dungeon World checks have nothing to do with task execution whatsoever, or little at any rate.

Skip I don't play dungeon world.

4e is yet another story,

I would love to talk 4e (it is my favorite edition) but now is not the time or place

Well, by classic 5e, I don't think a check was REQUIRED.

Okay, but what you think only matters when YOU DM, if not it is up to the DM in that game.

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.

no check should ever be meaningless (I think we agree). CHanging the in game story though is a meaning. Changing a resistant and stubbern kobold into a cowering fearful one is such a meaning. climbing the tree is such a meaning, ripping the bar off changed things.

Now the DM CAN rule an auto success or and auto fail, or they can ask for a check. Just becuse they ask for the check doesn't mean you get what you want... it just means the story the setting the character or something has 2 possible and probable future states and you roll the dice to decide.

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.

 

[HammerMan]

And I 'play to see what happens', so a check will be generated, but it isn't to 'see if you can do X' or 'see if the NPC can do X', it is just to see what the outcome is, did the PC achieve their goal? So, cast in classic DW terms, 6- the king throws you out on your ear, 7+ he offers his niece's hand in marriage, 10+ you get the princess.

that seems a reasonable way to run it. I mean you could even break it down more and say close niece/far off niece, attractive/unattractive and even first born princess (putting your hare in line for the thrown) or 3rd born... it's really any way you want to run it.

 

[clearstream]

Oh, sorry, I skipped over this step and went to the next step.

My response is: the DM will likely factor B's proficiency into the narrative, and if the DM makes a roll to add color, or if the player requests a roll to resolve uncertainty, then B's proficiency (and attribute) will increase the result of the roll by 2 or more. Ergo, B is more charming, according to the mechanics of the game.*

The more interesting part of that scenario is what happens next. How does the player choose to use that information? Which is why I skipped ahead to the part about trust.

*EDIT: I'll add that I can understand how somebody might say, "Except with 16 Cha and proficiency that's 'only' +5, and F could easily roll higher than B, so that's not really as charming as the narrative suggests!" Um, yeah. And that's how the game works, for better or worse. Which is another reason why I think the DM should skip the mechanics and just narrate somebody super-duper charming, then give the player authority to respond to that as they like.

That's what I'm getting at. As DM, I do not know how to play B' more charming than F'. Remembering that B' is more persuasive, which isn't quite the same as charming. B's arguments should usually sound more believable than F's. B' is better at bringing relevant facts to the attention of the listener.

And if as DM I tell party fighter which is more believable, then how does fighter make a decent choice. I'd rather roll dice and let party fighter know how they fell. And blimey if the rules don't support me in doing so

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I come at it from a pure FICTION FIRST perspective. In the case of combat, if there's a fictional situation which allows for an attack, then the player can fictionally describe his character's intent to make an attack, and the GM is then OBLIGED to process this in accordance with the combat system rules. She doesn't really have a choice, though in 5e maybe technically she could say 'no' I doubt that would fly. Likewise, if FICTIONALLY the PC is in a position where Intimidating some NPC is possible, then the GM in good faith has to invoke the intimidation rules.

Since we are talking about 5e we have to have a reasonable chance of success, the outcome has to be uncertain, and failure has to be interesting before a (non-combat) check should be called. Frankly, if I ran 5e, I would take this as basically "Say yes or roll dice." If failure isn't interesting and the action is fictionally possible, then the character succeeds! Even if the outcome is not, logically, certain, failure is uninteresting, so we assume it doesn't happen and go on. This is a game after all.