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

[Maxperson]

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 personally don't like them. I prefer the skill to be the skill and tools to either be required in order to use the skill or to provide a bonus to the skill.

 

[Maxperson]

Surely a character applies a tool though?

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

Pretty close to pressing a button.

Except for the fact that it presses no buttons.

PC: "I use my disguise kit to apply a disguise."
DM: "Okay. It takes you close to an hour to apply your disguise and prepare yourself to imitate Lady Hawke."
Druid: "I could have done that in a few seconds without a disguise kit."
PC: "Alright. Now that I'm disguised, I go down to the market and ask around about the Baron."

You don't have to roll to put on a disguise. You MIGHT have to roll if you encounter someone who has a chance to see through the disguise, but that's a DM call.

 

[clearstream]

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.

I usually let disguises ride, somewhat like Stealth. The check can be against multiple creatures.

 

[clearstream]

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!

DM is given a role in 2. Deciding on challenge. Explaining, too, one imagines.

So it's 5/6ths DM. Players get 1/6th.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

not sure what you are saying 'nope' to here. In my description of how 5e works I think I said basically exactly the same thing. You could intimidate the kobold, but the 'objective state' of the unrevealed backstory could make achieving your goal impossible. In DW this cannot happen, and that's the contrast. In 4e its more ambiguous, but I would say it is more like DW.

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

Well, now if we're talking about a check being made, which would match in 5e with 'uncertain', then the problem here is the 'valence problem' with 5e, it doesn't really say what 'success' entails, as a general game principle. However, my reading of various specific sections of the 5e DMG makes me believe that the principle is that the PC gets what they were after when they pass a check. If no success was possible, then the conditions requiring a check are not present. So we will have to disagree, though I do agree with you that 5e doesn't really prevent GMs from 'squibbing'. DW, for example, does though, you simply cannot deny the intent of a move that comes up with 10+. The REAL DIFFERENCE though is that nothing in DW is 'impossible' (or that is rare at least) because there isn't unrevealed backstory.

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

This would then be one of two cases. Either A) there is unrevealed backstory which makes it impossible (thus no check by RAW) or B) there's a problem with the description of the fiction. In case A either the action itself is impossible (the rope is rotten) or the action doesn't lead to any meaningful consequence and is thus still not worthy of a check. And if this is just a 'lets see if he hurts himself' kind of thing, well, this is why I don't really play 5e, such things are time wasters IMHO and don't contribute usefully to the game as I see it.

Skip I don't play dungeon world.

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

I use these examples to shed light on exactly what choices 5e is making in terms of how it envisages play to proceed.

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

Who can talk about what someone else thinks? The 5e rules DO however seem to state that, since the outcome was not in doubt, no check is required at all. Maybe my interpretation is wrong? I don't think so, but in this case I think what I'm talking about is what is on the printed page, lol.

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.

In the case of the kobold though I doubt that was uncertain. In the case of the bar on the door, wouldn't a knock spell deal with that as well as the magic? I mean, OK, the bar being missing is a change in game state, but I am dubious about it being worth a check. Why do I care about climbing a tree? I mean, OK, if the tree leads to some location that is interesting, maybe. If not then who cares? The character comes back down, and we go on our way.

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.

Well, I don't think we can discuss that except in the context of an AGENDA. So in a Gygaxian sort of approach then 'climb the tree' could be adjudicated on the simple principle of "roll to see if you fall on your head and take 3d6 damage from the fall or not." That CAN be compatible with an interpretation of 5e, you can use it that way. OTOH if the agenda is more 2e-like where the goal is "tell a story concocted by the GM and let the players provide characterization." then there's not really much use for the check, as it doesn't really bear on the story. Likewise with other forms of more cooperative story telling, the tree is irrelevant and a distraction, though I guess it could become more than that.

 

[Maxperson]

I usually let disguises ride, somewhat like Stealth. The check can be against multiple creatures.

Whereas in my game there's no roll unless there's the potential to see through the disguise. Then if the NPC isn't going to auto succeed for some reason, there's a roll to see if the NPC successfully sees through the disguise. And that roll is only for that particular NPC. Just because the PC rolled high for that NPC doesn't mean that his disguise was very good and will fool future NPCs, it just means that the first NPC failed to see through the disguise. The rolls aren't for the quality of the the disguise.

 

[clearstream]

Whereas in my game there's no roll unless there's the potential to see through the disguise. Then if the NPC isn't going to auto succeed for some reason, there's a roll to see if the NPC successfully sees through the disguise. And that roll is only for that particular NPC. Just because the PC rolled high for that NPC doesn't mean that his disguise was very good and will fool future NPCs, it just means that the first NPC failed to see through the disguise. The rolls aren't for the quality of the the disguise.

Agreed there must be challenge and consequences.

I like to leave the timing of the roll to the point of first contact. Ditto with Stealth. Adds to tension!

 

[Bill Zebub]

I usually let disguises ride, somewhat like Stealth. The check can be against multiple creatures.

I don’t let either ride. The character would assume they had done the disguise properly (or hidden properly) or they would have kept trying until they had. They won’t know whether or not they are successful until it’s needed.

Also, “letting it ride” (by which I assume you mean roll when the attempt is narrated, then carry that roll until it is contested) suggests a non-binary use of the d20, similar to how @HammerMan has described it. That is, a 13 is a “better effort/result” than a 12. Which is fine if that’s how you like to play, but not how the rules say.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Agreed there must be challenge and consequences.

I like to leave the timing of the roll to the point of first contact. Ditto with Stealth. Adds to tension!

Oh, scratch my previous response. I misunderstood.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Right, because 5e is just so vague on what the valence of any action of a PC is. This is a bit of another issue though, the rules still exist, they are just filled with so many carve outs for the GM to fudge that the process is pretty weak. Still, page 244 of the DMG DOES provide a 'system'. Assuming that the outcome is possible, failure is interesting, and the result is in doubt, the GM will arrive at section 3 "Charisma Check".