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

[Maxperson]

When said goal and-or approach involves persuading someone in-game, yes.

Obviously. Climbing has its own mechanic elsewhere on the character sheet. Ditto athletics. Etc.

If it's only there for the DM then it should be in the DM's tables. Why is it wasting space on my character sheet?

It's actually primarily for the player and not the DM. A very, very small percentage of NPCs/monsters even have persuasion or intimidation.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Not quite. I just want it to work equally in all directions (those being PC v PC, PC v NPC, NPC v PC, and NPC v NPC);

For it to work equally, it has to be recognized that it requires two parties: one to describe an attempt their character makes to influence another character, and the owner of that other character to decide how likely it is to work. It's a kind of negotiation. If only one person is on both sides of that negotiation it breaks down.

So for it "work equally in all directions" you need to maintain that structure. Thus, when it's an NPC attempting to influence the PC, the player and DM switch their usual roles.

and that means either a) scrapping the social mechanics entirely in favour of letting the players and DM play their characters as they will, or b) imposing some mechanical teeth onto those skills such that rolls can be called for by the instigator* and success forces boundaries onto the target's roleplay.

Perhaps needless to say, my prefernce is a) above.

* - be it player or DM.

Same here, which is why option a) above is better than option b).

I truly think you can view 5e as having scrapped social mechanics. All they really do is provide an option for letting RNG make decisions for you, if you don't want to just roleplay the outcome. So there's not really any formal mechanics.

 

[Lanefan]

Data, please.

Easy example: 1e demi-human level limits.

Most tables either greatly relaxed these or ignored them completely.

In response to this, 2e largely took them out.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Easy example: 1e demi-human level limits.

Most tables either greatly relaxed these or ignored them completely.

In response to this, 2e largely took them out.

I meant data that the majority of players agree with you on the point being discussed.

 

[Lanefan]

I meant data that the majority of players agree with you on the point being discussed.

Sigh.

My point is that if it turns out that most tables are playing 5e such that skills and abilities are used as actions* a la 3e and-or 4e then it's a safe bet that in 6e skills and abilities - whichever ones still exist - will by RAW be usable as actions.

* - which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let’s take that a little further out of the white room for a moment, shall we? Say you the player roll to Hide and it beats whatever number - same result as the DM granting auto success, right? Say you the player roll and the result is a failure - now your PC is not successfully hidden, can be targeted by enemies, and foregoes the chance for advantage on an attack next round. I think there can be many rolls in a session that allow for unexpected, surprising, and effective results. I don’t think failing to hide is one of those examples. YMMV

I think in combat, the turn spent trying and failing to hide is consequence enough to make failure interesting. The nice thing about combat is that it has built-in dramatic conflict, and every action has a built-in cost.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sigh.

My point is that if it turns out that most tables are playing 5e such that skills and abilities are used as actions* a la 3e and-or 4e then it's a safe bet that in 6e skills and abilities - whichever ones still exist - will by RAW be usable as actions.

* - which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

I wouldn't be so sure of that estimate. The D&D numbers have exploded with 5e, so although the kind of people who hang out in places like Enworld are D&D veterans, that's not really true for the rest of the population. What we read here is not representative.

 

[pemerton]

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?

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.

I've bolded a part of your earlier post that seems relevant.

How likely the King is to do <whatever> seems to depend, at least in part, on who asks him.

Likewise, what is possible using a "Herbalist Kit" seems likely to vary based on who is using it.

The who can, in turn, be thought of in different ways.

We could think about character skill: Wormtongue is skilled at getting kings to do things; Radagast is skilled at doing things with Herbalist Kits.

We could think about narrative role: Kirk is skilled at getting kings to do things; Scotty can get the Enterprise to warp speed with nothing but the sweat of his brow and a Herbalist Kit.

It's not clear how exactly how you approach makes room for either of these ways.

 

[clearstream]

Except that the players have no say in whether an ability check is called for or not, nor arguably should they even want to make an ability check since relying on a d20 isn't smart play.

My group doesn't always aim for smart play. Our tradition is one of valuing stochastic outcomes. Surprises. A notion that not all details in the game-world can be known by players.

We should also not confuse the common use of words like "sleight of hand" with "Make a Sleight of Hand check." Those are not the same things, even if sometimes when the character engages in an act of sleight of hand, the player sometimes makes a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check. Understanding that players don't "use skills" or "make skill checks" but rather describe what they want to do and leave the rest to the DM is important to understanding how this game works in my view and how it is different from a game that expressly puts the ask to make "skill checks" in the hands of the player.

I agree that in most cases - the baseline - 5th expressly puts the call for ability checks in the hands of the DM. And to my reading it is implied that DM always has final say, even if for the sake of good play and conversation at the table, players might invoke a mechanic or check directly.

For us, if a player says "I want to roll my Investigation to X" and that communicates enough, and DM is comfortable that appropriate challenge and consequences applies, then we know that DM tacitly made the call... via their silence.

 

[clearstream]

Actually though, which games literally put the choice in the hands of the player? DW doesn't, nor 4e, nor 5e. I mean, BW maybe does, but now we're off in another direction at that point. In most systems, certainly in 5e, the GM is in charge of translating the fiction to the mechanics. I would read all of these games as intending an obligation of the GM to do so in 'good faith' but in the 5e case specifically I agree that only the GM can 'call for a check', because only the GM knows the hidden backstory which could bear on if success is possible etc. and without those conditions checks are not required (but you could still use them for the purpose of obfuscation).

Agreed on the technicalities - DM decides if there is a check. I'm saying for us, DM can decide there is a check in a case where a player asked for a check. DM still decides. They could have declined the check. Or called for one even where player didn't want one.