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

[clearstream]

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.

In a way, I am agreeing with this. I am saying that just as much as it is fine for rogue to say "I am using thieve's tools on the lock" (sotto voce, I'm not a locksmith in real life), and it's okay for the rogue to say "I am taking an action to hide using Stealth", they can say "I use sleight of hand to palm the coin". That can even be as brief as "I use sleight of hand" if the narration up to that point has made it clear what the subject must be.

 

[HammerMan]

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

I call this the Ross argument ... (i don't think your him)
It started in 3e with a high cha (like in high twenties by end of campaign but I want to say 17 to start) sorcerer dumping lots of points into cha skills only to have a half orc 8 cha no skill points in any cha skills out talk him because the player was better... it made the PC end a no brainer "I don't care how well Dave argues compared to Ross, Ross's character has +27 and Dave's has -1... the best Dave can get is a19 and the worst Ross can get is 28, so Ross's character does it better IN GAME"
By the time Becky and Ross were DMing in any regularity the idea of needing to roll for NPCs was already a thing we had to work out...but 3e wasn't really friendly to it (and many other ways we played) luckly the 5e rules seem to be much better in that regard.

 

[clearstream]

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.

As a gamer I am interested in the G part of RPG. Additionally, I use the rules to constitute both the game-world and the way our narrative emerges within it. Adversary is provocative: failure is often more interesting than success!

 

[Bill Zebub]

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 also an auto success at my table.

Now tell me what the disguise is, and who you are trying to fool, and we will try again. Maybe then I will ask for a roll, depending on what your goal and approach are.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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 would say that 5e is not, in this sense, 'one game' because skills (and even ability checks in general) are an OPTIONAL rule! If they are not something that the participants want to use, and they are still playing with that rule, they are playing (to a degree) the 'wrong game'. I mean, this happens all the time. Most people who whip out 5e don't actually sit down and decide how they play and choose an appropriate subset of the rules, they just assume 'kitchen sink' and go for it. Later these debates might arise, though for 99% of the world none of this really matters. Players invoke whatever it is they envisage might get them what they are after, and the GM responds in some fashion or other. 5e is not actually a game for high brow play, IMHO. Not in the real world. This is probably why most people play it, its there and it 'works for them' and they are uninterested in any niceties of theory of how it 'should work'.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

What are the “intimidation rules”?

If you are referring to the general play loop, then I agree. And part of that loop is that the DM can rule that the NPC would be intimidated, and not need dice. Alternately, the DM…knowing their NPCs personalities and capabilities better than I do…might feel there is no chance it would succeed and rule it an automatic failure. Either way, by playing with that DM I am trusting their judgment.

 

[Maxperson]

Even during initiative, a Rogue with Rakish Audacity has the option to invoke that mechanic to add their CHA to INI.


That is analogous to arguing that they are not invoking any mechanics, once their game session commences. Within combat, players excercise choice: they choose which mechanic to invoke (the combat actions), including the choice not to invoke any mechanic. As the rules are written, players invoke the mechanic directly. They may also have class features they can invoke during combat, such as Panache.

Invoking a mechanic is calling for that mechanic specifically. The player calls for a skill check. The player calls for initiative. The player calls for an attack roll. The player does none of those things. The player declares an action and perhaps mechanics follow.

For example, the player says, "I attack the guards." The initiative that follows was not invoked by the player. Another would be the player says, "I attempt to pick the lock on the door." The skill check(if any) that follows was not invoked by the player. Or the player says, "I attack the ogre." The targeting, attack roll and perhaps damage are not invoked by the player. Those things follow from the declared action.

And yes, the player declares that they are using/invoking Rakish Audacity the ability. They are not invoking the mechanic itself, saying "I invoke charisma to initiative and I don't need advantage or another creature next to the enemy to use sneak attack." That mechanic follows from what the player did declare.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

As I said, in the context of the post that statement was about RAW, not a declaration of a One True Way. Context matters.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Play loop from the "How to Play" section of the PHB:

1. The DM describes the environment. <--- here be the DM's territory
2. The players describe what they want to do. <--- Players only here... stay out DM!
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions. <--- back to the DM

So, one can see how @Hriston might just be talking about the play loop, yes? Looks like the play loop is 1/3 player, 2/3 DM, as they indicated. Their whole post is just stuff from the book - granted some seem to take issue with how they paraphrase but, to me anyway, it all makes sense in the context of the basic play loop. No malicious intent need be assigned or defended against here - at least not until they come back and actually tell some/most/all of us here that we're playing wrong. Then we can really unleash the wrath of the internets on them, complete with laugh and wow and sad emojis!

 

[Maxperson]

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

Setting aside that guidance=rules in 5e, this is how I view these things.

1. Rules are definitive. "The players can world build small villages and NPCs."
2. Guidance is suggestive and guide you towards something. "You should probably let the players world build small villages and NPCs."
3. Possible ways to do things are informational. "If you want to, you can let the players world build small villages and NPCs."

I don't view that as either a rule or guidance. And is why I view age 185 of the PHB as a rule.