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

[HammerMan]

Why can't they? Did you already determine that a roll was necessary before getting input from the players in step 2 of the play loop?

no. but I take the skill level of the character into the consideration over the skill level of the player.

in my game you can describe the perfect stealth idea, have the most persuasive arguement I personally have ever heard, or describe the most detailed search I have ever heard... if you are doing something that is based on your dump stat untrained... you roll or auto fail. If someone else stumbles and stutters out A SKILL NAME and gives me the basic idea and I can understand it in context, and they have a huge bonus.. I might just give them an auto success or at the very least let them roll.

As DM, I'm describing the scene. I'm expecting the players to make some minimal effort to interact with it.

I'm not saying no effort, I am saying "I don't know how to do X, but my character does and I want to do X"

 

[prabe]

I mean the stealth across the room is most likely not the best example... but I have seen it with persuasion investigate and iintimidate way more then I care to admit

So, my own approach is very much not RAW. I use a lot of autosuccess--and I do some gating behind Proficiency both for some autosuccess and occasionally for even the chance to roll. I also, for some checks people can reasonably examine beforehand, allow someone with Proficiency to know the DC before they commit to the action (and unless there's a good reason not to, I tell them the DC when they roll). I use degrees of success/failure (which are in the DMG) but I'm a bit more granular about that, in that I use the whole range on the d20 to inform my adjudication.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I can see wanting something from the player, to help adjudicate, but there are definitely times--though this Stealth check doesn't sound like one--where it seems reasonable to presume the character is competent in ways the player isn't, and has information the player doesn't. I generally presume the characters are competent and don't punish them unduly for clumsy or sparse declarations.

Oh definitely. My base assumption is that the characters are competent adventurers. Like you said, this is not a game of "gotcha". I just want the player to interact with the information given so I can adjudicate fairly without making assumptions. I'll ask clarifying questions, if necessary.

 

[HammerMan]

So, my own approach is very much not RAW. I use a lot of autosuccess--and I do some gating behind Proficiency both for some autosuccess and occasionally for even the chance to roll. I also, for some checks people can reasonably examine beforehand, allow someone with Proficiency to know the DC before they commit to the action (and unless there's a good reason not to, I tell them the DC when they roll). I use degrees of success/failure (which are in the DMG) but I'm a bit more granular about that, in that I use the whole range on the d20 to inform my adjudication.

Yeah, I start off by house ruleing (not 1st session of first campaign but I think my first 5e campaign) that any DC of 10 or lower is an auto success for a PC trained in it (I have some important NPCs I treat as PCs for this purpose but 90% of the world doesn't get this). then I rearranged some DCs

 

[HammerMan]

Oh definitely. My base assumption is that the characters are competent adventurers. Like you said, this is not a game of "gotcha". I just want the player to interact with the information given so I can adjudicate fairly without making assumptions. I'll ask clarifying questions, if necessary.

so again in the (bad) example of stealth... "I want to get past the guard, and I have a huge stealth but I don't know how that would work" compared to a perfect description of something that should work (in you the DMs mind) from someone with an 8 dex and in armor that give disadvantage

 

[pemerton]

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."

I thought it was a Silmaril? Or is that only if it's an Elven king?

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Honestly I have no idea what you mean. I'm describing using roleplaying to resolve interactions, not just relying on dice rolls. I can't think of a better way to support the kinds of things you are describing.

 

[Oofta]

so again in the (bad) example of stealth... "I want to get past the guard, and I have a huge stealth but I don't know how that would work" compared to a perfect description of something that should work (in you the DMs mind) from someone with an 8 dex and in armor that give disadvantage

I suspect you're never going to get a straight answer. Seems like a simple question to me.

For me? I may ask for clarification if player intent is not clear, but I don't require anything other than the player communicating what they are doing. Doesn't matter if they do it with 4 words or 40. How they say what they're doing is never going to affect the DC.

As far as engaging in the fiction different players have different preferences. A lot of times I'm perfectly okay with shortcuts because I just want to get to the interesting stuff.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

okay so again

if you say there is not 'right or magic' words,

can someone with ANY SKILL at -1 and disadvantage to the roll describe an action that IF it needed a roll would fall under such negatives, describe better then someone with +9 and advantage IF it needed a roll would fall under such, and have the character with -1 disad auto succseed and the one with one with +9 adv auto fail?

You are already presuming a roll here when you invoke "-1 and disadvantage". Those things do not come into play until the DM decides that a roll is necessary.

Ignoring that part. What does it mean to "describe better"? If you mean the player with the mechanically weaker character has a better approach to solving a particular situation then, sure, their DC might be lower to accomplish said task.

For example: Let's say the party sees a 20' wall and wants to get over it. The player with the weaker character describes wanting to use the rickety extension ladder that is lying on the ground while the player with the stronger character describes wanting just to climb the very smooth wall. Let's say both require checks. Yes, the one using the ladder might have a lower DC than the one climbing the smooth wall. Using the ladder was a better approach in this situation. And maybe the character climbing the smooth wall has a personality trait that says they prefer to do things the hard way (earning them inspiration). Or maybe not. What their PCs choose to do is up to them. Is any of this problematic?

 

[iserith]

Good lord. Here we go with "magic words" again.

Only a matter of time because that's all they got and they erroneously think it's a relevant argument.