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

[Cadence]

Why would it take extra time? I mean, when a rogue with a +15 bonus to Stealth is sneaking around, isn't part of how they are doing it so well that they are talking off their shoes and stuffing things into their quivers?

If not - ie if you envisage a +15 Stealth rogue being able to be stealthy without actually doing any of those things you described that make a person quiet - then the skill system seems to become this weird a-fictional thing.

I was picturing the sneaky person being naturally good/trained at not jiggling around unnecessarily and knowing how to place their feet to not squeak on the floor. (I had not pictured them necessarily "dressing quieter" by default beyond not having disadvantage from armor, but I guess they'd do that too). If the sneaky person also said they wanted to be extra cautious with taking time to tie things down or take things off, I'd probably give them an extra bonus on that too.

 

[HammerMan]

Stat/skill come into play when the dice come out.
Uncertainty is determined by the challenge at hand (my description of the scene - step 1 of the play loop) and the approach described by the players (step 2)

see here we go again with 'play loop steps' its a game, a conversation not a mechanica step1 X step 2 Y most times... you can use context of the world the campaign the night the scene to understand what they want and if they don't know HOW to do it but there character does I don't understand why it matters.

Yes, no doubt. And so the high Dex character with those proficiencies is probably the one stepping up to take on tasks that might require such things. But if both are trying to sneak behind the trees to get past the guard, and a roll is required, the DC is the same because the approach is the same.

yes, but if the low stat paliden comes up with a creative work around and describes his attempt to stealth better?

The players can play their character however they like at our table. The smart play would be to lean into ones strengths on their sheet but it is not some requirement to be enforced. As a DM, I have plenty of work to do and prefer to leave the sheets to the players.

so a really smart player that knows how to describe there way around some stats or talk thorugh with you those stats can dump them to place the higher stats in places rolls will more likely be called for?

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Okay I recognize it is a different play style (although one I dislike, event though the first 1/3 of my D&D life and almost all my WoD life was spend playing that way)

I'm trying... but I can't find a way to even under stand where he is coming from OTHER then it's player skill over character skill.

You played that way yet don't understand it now? The DC on this puzzle is high indeed.

Clearly I'm missing something here.

 

[prabe]

Why would it take extra time? I mean, when a rogue with a +15 bonus to Stealth is sneaking around, isn't part of how they are doing it so well that they are talking off their shoes and stuffing things into their quivers?

If not - ie if you envisage a +15 Stealth rogue being able to be stealthy without actually doing any of those things you described that make a person quiet - then the skill system seems to become this weird a-fictional thing.

My thinking (completely unsupported by game rules) is that the high-Stealth rogue (or for that matter ranger) would have, inter alia, shoes with softer-than-usual soles (or thinner-than-usual, or something) and a quiver that was built not to allow the ammunition therein to rattle. Like, part of why you're so good at it is that you've sought out some of these little edges that most people haven't.

 

[Cadence]

so a really smart player that knows how to describe there way around some stats or talk thorugh with you those stats can dump them to place the higher stats in places rolls will more likely be called for?

Are INT and CHR the two big offenders here?

I'm a fan of not having INT or not having it represent the ability to be clever/common knowledge kind of for that reason (how does someone play a character as less smart and not use things they'd think of that their character never would).

For the CHR case, I don't need the characters to talk in voices or even give me any details, but it feels like smart play can change the DC "I try to convince the Bullywug leader to untie the two captives" seems different than "I tell the Bullywug leader that the last tribe we visited had a fighting ring and made their captives battle each other, and those two over their look bigger and more entertaining than what we saw before. I bet they would be awesome." I gave the player, who basically made up the later on the spot, a lot lower DC than I was planning too.

 

[HammerMan]

This isn't true.

it isn't ALWAYs true... but yeah a salesman can sell ice to eskimos...

Using subdued flattery rather than caustic mockery is a better approach to persuading someone, over whom you have no particular leverage, to do what you want them to do - at least in a typical human interaction.

ugh... I'm so not wanting to go here, but there is an approach called Neging... and it works sometimes... it's crazy and yes if someone is persuasive they can most like lt get someone to agree with caustic mockery

i hate negging...

@Cadence's ideas about how to make sure you are less noisy when trying to sneak past someone are good approaches.

they are,

 

[Swarmkeeper]

yup... that is a BIG part of why we can't agree. I see you playing a ROLE, not playing yourself. See above about chess and combat and just ingeneral things that don't transalte as 'every character you play gets to be good at every thing you are'

You misunderstand. Players at our table are not playing themselves. They use their own knowledge and their conception of their character to inform how they roleplay. If you think about it, that's what everyone who roleplays is doing. Some choose to draw a line somewhere though on how much of our "own knowledge" is ok to inject into the game world. I have no such line (as long as everyone is playing in good faith). But just because you, the player, know something or that you, the player, thinks their PC knows something, that does not make it a sure thing in the game world. Does that makes sense?

but you would rule the certainty on the out of game knowledge?

See above

You said up top
"I think some of the misunderstanding here comes from what appears to be your need to separate player and character knowledge whereas I have no such need."
if a player at your table knew that the king had an affair and had a bastard... but the character had no way of knowing it (say it was info a previous character that died had, or even just from last campaign in same world) can they use that knowledge?

I don't care. They could make up some fictional reason for gaining the info, including it was a tale heard at a music hall (see what I did there?) or that the others in the party told them. Let's move on to the fun stuff instead of what I don't find fun: forcing people to pretend they don't know things (that said, if the player wants their PC to now know something, they can go for it).

okay so the paliden in plate with disadvantage in stealth and an 8 dex describes a brilliant way to sneak past a guard... a rogue trained expertise in stealth and boots of elven kind and a dex above 20 can't tell you how he is stealthing but just that he wants to... you will auto pass the paliden and make the rogue keep trying to explain... right?

a good approach is subjective. a real life persuasive person can get you to think anything is a 'good approch' even a bad one. A player that is not persuasive but maybe a bit abrasive might not be able to make any approach sound good...

Ok, if that became an actual problem that impacted our fun that I was somehow ignorant about, I'd expect another player to tell me. That's a social contract issue and has nothing to do with our playstyle.

 

[pemerton]

I can't find a way to even under stand where he is coming from OTHER then it's player skill over character skill.

But the relevant player skill is not skill in persuasion. It is skill in the various knacks that are relevant to resolving declared actions in the non-combat, non-magic space.

Given the typical subject matter of D&D, it's good knowledge of simple building, carpentry, not-too-technical machines, etc. Plus - in the social context - some basic skill in human interaction.

I don't understand why some think they have some play loop that must be used and must be phrases right and the better phrasing equals a better attempt.

I agree with @Swarmkeeper here that "magic words" or "better phrasing" is not a helpful way to go about it.

Think about the chess example I posted upthread. It's not "better phrasing" - it's declaring that I move my pawn to such-and-such a square. If the GM then responds with the NPC's move, and we keep going, well what we have is the GM and player playing a chess game. And the player will win, if they are a ranked club player while the GM is a rank amateur. But that has nothing to do with "better phrasing" - it's just accurately describing the PC playing chess well,

Likewise with @Cadence's example of stuffing a cloth in the quiver to stop the arrows rattling - that's not about phrasing, it's just describing doing a sensible thing to reduce noise.

That's why, it seems to me, the real question isn't about phrasing but about what is encompassed and permissible in action declaration, and how are declared actions resolved? Are players expected to confine their action declarations in ways that conform to what their PC build suggests their PC is good at? Is the GM, in adjudicating declarations, expected to have regard not just to what the player describes about their PC's interaction with the other fictional elements, but to also have regard to what the PC build suggests the PC is good at?

There are many, many RPGs that give rise to exactly this question, not just 5e D&D. Rolemaster, RuneQuest; I imagine Hero and GURPS played in low-tech contexts; even CoC set in the non-modern period.

I don't think there is a single way of responding to this issue while leaving the game's design parameters unchanged. Hence the difference of approach between you and @Swarmkeeper!

 

[HammerMan]

You played that way yet don't understand it now? The DC on this puzzle is high indeed.

Clearly I'm missing something here.

I understand HOW you play (even if I disagree and you don't like the words I use to describe it) I don't understand you taking a huge stance on "this is what roleplaying is" or "Raw this is the play loop" (TBH I don't understand why you would choose what I think of as an outdated style over the ones suggested here but that is more preference I don't understand)

 

[HammerMan]

Are INT and CHR the two big offenders here?

I would say (in order) Cha, Int, Dex, Wis... CON AND STR close enough to never to count as never.

I'm a fan of not having INT or not having it represent the ability to be clever/common knowledge kind of for that reason (how does someone play a character as less smart and not use things they'd think of that their character never would).

I can see that

For the CHR case, I don't need the characters to talk in voices or even give me any details, but it feels like smart play can change the DC "I try to convince the Bullywug leader to untie the two captives" seems different than "I tell the Bullywug leader that the last tribe we visited had a fighting ring and made their captives battle each other, and those two over their look bigger and more entertaining than what we saw before. I bet they would be awesome." I gave the player, who basically made up the later on the spot, a lot lower DC than I was planning too.

yup... creative player skill