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

[Swarmkeeper]

You may have missed my point.

In an approach to adjudication of the sort that you advocate, the player's goal is to describe what their PC does with sufficiently advantageous fictional positioning that the GM does not regard success as uncertain and hence does not call for a check.

And - as per your exchange with @HammerMan upthread - the scope of permissible description, by a player, of what their PC does is (at least in many cases) independent of what their ability and skill bonuses are.

Hence, it is possible for a character, in play, to be extremely and successfully sneaky and yet have a modest or even non-existent bonus in DEX and DEX(Stealth).

This is driven home by @Nefermandias's post upthread: "I can run a whole campaign in 5e without asking for ability checks". Particularising that to the case of Stealth, a PC in 5e D&D can successfully stealth their way through a whole campaign - at least if your approach to adjudication is used - by clever action declaration while having a DEX bonus of +0 and no proficiency in Stealth skill.

For those D&D players - who are obviously not all of them, but clearly are some of them - who think that what a PC is able to succeed at should correlate in some fashion to what is on their PC sheet, the possibility I've just described is not desirable. Hence they reject your approach to adjudication.

Their rejection obviously is not a reason for you to change your approach. But I don't think it's particularly hard to see what their issue is.


Again, I don't think you've fully addressed the point I was making.

When I mentioned the player in my 4e game who - drawing on his actual knowledge of military history - used a "tank traps" approach to help defend a homestead against attacks by goblins, including wolf riders, you replied "Awesome. Glad that player is on my team." I inferred from that that you think the action declaration about building tank traps from rope and timber is a good action declaration, that is pertinent to adjudication.

I further inferred that you think it is a superior action declaration to, for instance, just saying "I prepare defensive fortifications using rope and timber" without actually saying something about how that is going to be done.

Assuming those inferences are correct - to me they seem highly consistent not only with your "Awesome" response but your other posts in this thread, including but not limited to your example of using a ladder to climb a wall.

Now suppose the two contrasting action declarations are not I prepare defensive fortifications using rope and timber vs I use rope and timber to build <describes things like tank traps> that will help block the charge because of <explains how tank traps work to block charges>. Suppose instead that they are I give a rousing speech to encourage the soldiers to hold the line vs I address the soldiers - <gives rousing speech about how they should hold the line>.

I take it that you treat these latter two action declarations equivalently. But I think that they stand in exactly the same contrast as the first pair. Only the second of the two declarations in my second pair actually explains how it is that the speech will rouse the soldiers - by actually modelling it - whereas the first simply asserts without explaining that the speech is rousing, just as the first declaration in the first pair simply asserts without explaining that the rope and timber are used to prepare defensive fortifications.

To boil it down: if a player's ability to understand how tank traps works gives their PC a benefit to defend a homestead against goblins, why should a player's ability to know how to inspire people not give their PC a benefit to inspire people? Obviously you are drawing a line here, but to me the line seems a little arbitrary. Or maybe that's not quite the right word, because I'm sure you have a reason that is sensible for you as to why you're drawing the line. But that reason isn't accessible to me - so to me the line seems idiosyncratic to you.

In my 4e GMing, my BW GMing, my Prince Valiant GMing, in both pairs of action declarations the second one, which actually explains or spells out what the PC is doing to achieve their goal, would be a superior action declaration. But in none of them would it be an "automatic success" because none of those systems uses the criteria you are using to determine whether or not a check is called for.


If the action declaration, in a social context, is an actual social performance, it doesn't get more specific than that! Likewise, if the action declaration is a chess game, actually saying what moves your PC makes.

I mean, I appreciate the thought that went into all this, but it is honestly hard for me to follow and too much to digest. Especially where you start talking about other games. I'm sorry but I just don't play other RPGs and don't have the time or inclination to learn about them. They are not why I come to a D&D forum and specifically a 5e thread so when I see that stuff I honestly tune out. I know, I'm missing an opportunity to learn - maybe someday.


Let me try to simplify to see if it helps:

Vague action declaration: Something where I, as DM, need to fill in the details to adjudicate (in this case, I won't make assumptions and will ask the player for more detail)
Specific action declaration: Something where I, as DM, can immediately adjudicate

1. "I prepare defensive fortifications" is (probably) too vague.
2. "I prepare defensive fortifications using rope and timber" is reasonably specific.
3. "blah blah blah I know all about tank traps" is even more specific, but it's really no better in play than 2.

1. "I search the room" is too vague.
2. "I visually examine the east wall" is reasonably specific.
3. "blah blah blah I'm a home inspector in real life and I do XYZ." Sure, same as 2.

1. "I inspire the troops" is too vague
2. "I inspire the troops by telling a tale of bravery and teamwork" is reasonably specific.
3. "blah blah blah I'm an Art of War researcher and XYZ let's go!" same as 2.

1. "I investigate the oven" is too vague
2. "I investigate the oven by looking inside and smelling for anything unusual." Great
3. "blah blah blah I've seen every episode of Master Chef and love Gord..." GET OUT OF MY HOUSE!

Make sense?

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind here.

And in the context of 5e D&D, for me at least this always get back to the question why can't the devout fighter pray to the gods for miracles, and have them answered, even though there is no divine spellcasting ability recorded on that character's PC sheet?

I think it would be a blast to play a fighter who believes he has a divine patron, and constantly invokes his god, and then convinces himself (and tries to convince others) that, whatever happens, it's proof of his divinity.

I tend to think that, for the same sorts of reasons as being able to pray for miracles is channelled through rather specific class features, so being able to sneak around without being caught is also something that it makes sense to channel through specific class features.

Same thing. "I was perfectly silent! It was your heavy breathing that alerted the guards!"

Ok, that one could get annoying because there are mechanical consequences to thinking you're stealthy when you're not.

 

[Bill Zebub]

A player is advised to take their character's ability scores into account when fleshing out the character's appearance and personality, but ultimately a player decides how the character acts and thinks. Inspiration is awarded for acting in particular ways according to personal characteristics which notably aren't tied to ability scores.

I'm running a secondary campaign right now where multiple PCs have Int 5. A few have Cha 5. They still portray the character however they want. It's not up to me to tell them how to play Int 5 and certain portrayals would probably be offensive anyway. What it means in play is that they are largely terrible at exploration challenges involving Intelligence and bad at social interaction challenges. Inspiration gets spent a lot in these situations because they can't reliably deduce the working of a trap or secret door they found, recall useful lore, or try to influence NPCs without it. They end up having to pay NPCs a lot for lore or favors. These are the trade-offs they accepted. They aren't getting away with anything or "cheating."

A while ago I played in The Lost Shrine of Tomacholoanalisticexpialodocious or whatever it's called and the highest Int in the party was 10. Zoinks! Wrong dungeon for that! (Was that a spoiler?)

 

[Bill Zebub]

No, they aren't. Stats X do include penalty Y to rolls, but to say that's the only reason they matter is, um, silly. You keep on keeping on though.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be used for flavor, or as roleplaying cues. I'm just saying that doing so in a counterintuitive way is not breaking any rules.

Honestly I don't understand what the pushback is on this. I've never played an 8 Str character who looks like he's on roids and acts like he's Marlon Brando (but somehow always has an excuse when things don't quite work out), but if I did, why would that bother you so much? Is there a fear that somehow it's "cheating"? Is this @Lanefan's thing, that somehow what I'm really doing is trying to finagle some kind of in-game advantage, by dumping Str and then pretending I'm strong? How could that possibly be an advantage?

 

[iserith]

A while ago I played in The Lost Shrine of Tomacholoanalisticexpialodocious or whatever it's called and the highest Int in the party was 10. Zoinks! Wrong dungeon for that! (Was that a spoiler?)

That dungeon sucks out loud, but yeah, any dungeon in my games is going to be a problem for parties with poor Intelligence among them. You're going to pay for it with time, blood, gold, missed opportunities, and you'll end up spending precious Inspiration in exploration challenges instead of making saves against a powerful spell or the like in combat. It definitely ain't free to dump Int!

 

[Bill Zebub]

That dungeon sucks out loud, but yeah, any dungeon in my games is going to be a problem for parties with poor Intelligence among them. You're going to pay for it with time, blood, gold, missed opportunities, and you'll end up spending precious Inspiration in exploration challenges instead of making saves against a powerful spell or the like in combat. It definitely ain't free to dump Int!

Does it ever.

 

[Voadam]

So just to be clear, you're not imagining your PC having the mighty thews and physical prowess of REH's Conan?

Let's go with the exact extreme example.

A player comes to me as DM and says they want to imagine their Str 8 Con 10 stat warlock as descriptively having the mighty thews and physical prowess of Conan.

I would tell them I have no problem with them describing their character how they want, but they will still have a -1 on strength checks. If it does not cause a dissonance problem for them and is what they want to play, I am fine with accommodating the descriptive self image they want for their roleplay character.

If someone wants to roleplay as much of an ideal of a person as they can across multiple aspects, I am fine with that.

Mechanically I want it balanced so stats have mechanical impact and I suggest players assign stats according to their class build so all the characters are roughly stat optimized for their combat style and build. I want players to play whatever mechanical build they want and whatever roleplay persona/description they want regardless of build.

This approach prioritizes player choice of character portrayal and mechanical balance over balancing optimized build stats versus concept when a player goes against class stat build in character roleplay portrayal concept.

Aesthetically I prefer to have the game not incentivize slotting mechanically optimized character builds into only certain roleplay roles. I prefer to have mechanics and roleplay be separate.

 

[Fenris-77]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be used for flavor, or as roleplaying cues. I'm just saying that doing so in a counterintuitive way is not breaking any rules.

Honestly I don't understand what the pushback is on this. I've never played an 8 Str character who looks like he's on roids and acts like he's Marlon Brando (but somehow always has an excuse when things don't quite work out), but if I did, why would that bother you so much? Is there a fear that somehow it's "cheating"? Is this @Lanefan's thing, that somehow what I'm really doing is trying to finagle some kind of in-game advantage, by dumping Str and then pretending I'm strong? How could that possibly be an advantage?

Well, if you don't get that there are, and have for may years been people, lots of people, who dump INT and CHA with the specific idea that they're going to RP it out, I can't help you. This is a real thing. Whether or not you believe in it.

 

[iserith]

Well, if you don't get that there are, and have for may years been people, lots of people, who dump INT and CHA with the specific idea that they're going to RP it out, I can't help you. This is a real thing. Whether or not you believe in it.

It sounds to me like those DMs were not presenting situations fraught with uncertainty or meaningful consequences or not following the Middle Path approach of balancing outright success with calling for ability checks. When the DM makes it so there's no cost to dumping Int or Cha, then it makes perfect sense to me some players are going to dump Int or Cha. That's probably basic game theory or economics or something.

In the secondary campaign that I mentioned a couple posts ago, those players aren't my regulars so it looks like they were used to playing with DMs that run their games this way. But, as they've come to find out, that's going to cost them something in a game like mine - oops! I guess what I could have done is judge them for portraying their characters in a way that I don't approve of or maybe get them to inform on each other for not roleplaying correctly as with Lanefan's group. That just seems less effective to me than what I'm doing though.

 

[Mercurius]

A clever DM can get around players trying to "out-smart" their INT or "charm-up" their CHA, and have fun while doing so. I mean, maybe a low CHA character has a low CHA partially because they're not nearly as charismatic as they think they are, and maybe one definition of a low intelligence person is someone who thinks they're much smarter than they actually are. So even as a smart player with a low INT character comes up with a clever idea that is inconsistent with their character, the DM can either say, "Wrong" or just make them roll for it. Similarly with CHA.