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

[HammerMan]

I mean, yeah, at this point it is questionable whether ability scores serve a reasonable purpose. But as long as they exist, I want them to actually represent something; if they don't, I have no need for them.

let me say I am cool with sacred cow becoming hamburger... if they changed/did away with str/dex/con/int/wis/cha I would give it a try... I don't know if it would feel the same though

Pre 4e my group had gone cold on D&D (and it was a much larger group at the time) so we branched out tried WoD, CoC, Deadlands even for fantasy games... but as much as we didn't want to play 3e anymore nothing quite got teh itch scratched... Now we splintered on 4e/Pathfinder/giving up RP right at the PF/4e age... and we somewhat got a bit back for 5e, and I don't know if such a large swing would get us all MORE into D&D or less...

 

[Oofta]

And failing to play a low intelligence is the player failing to take what that ability score means into account. If the player is playing a 5 int Sherlock Holmes(I had forgotten that one until you mentioned it ), then they are not following what RAW tells them that they should do.

Like the ability check discussion.

Not only the 5 int Sherlock Holmes, now we have the 5 strength bodybuilder/WWE wrestler.

 

[Maxperson]

Not only the 5 int Sherlock Holmes, now we have the 5 strength bodybuilder/WWE wrestler.

20 Strength halfling wrestler!

 

[HammerMan]

PHB 173: "A score of 10 or 11 is the normal human average, but adventurers and many monsters are a cut above average in most abilities. A score of 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches."

Here it tells us how to read the base ability number(not the bonus). 10-11 is human average, so a 10-11 strength would not be someone who is very strong physically like @Bill Zebub's example. And it tells us that 18 is the highest that a person usually reaches, so we know that an 18 strength is very strong. Conversely, based on those two example we know that a 3 strength is very weak.

Yeah, when we sat down (MANY YEARS ago, I want to say 2002) to play a game once the DM started by asking us to 'make yourself' in D&D stats... but don't tell anyone. Then put your name in a bowl, and we all draw out... stat the person you draw out... then compair how you see you and how others do... it was an intresting way to start a game, but it lead to us really diving into the idea of how 'above or below' average people were... and if a common person has 11str 10 dex 11 con 10 int 11 wis 10 cha then a 'really strong guy at the college' might have a 13-14 str...

PHB 175: "Strength measures bodily power, athletic training, and the extent to which you can exert raw physical force."

Here it tells us that strength measures bodily power, so a PC with a low strength has low bodily power and ability to exert raw physical force, which is the opposite of someone with a powerful build, even if that powerful build somehow has a negative ability modifier.

It's not wrong to play the way Bill Zebub is saying, but it's also not RAW. This is a situation in which to play that way, you have to ignore what RAW is saying and opt into a different playstyle, much the same as when @HammerMan rolls to see how well his NPCs are performing a skill.

so funny that you put those two together... but since I agree with your first part I will leave this.

This sort of playstyle is just not my cup of tea. It sounds like Bill Zebub would have a grand time playing that way and as long as people are having fun, they're doing it right.

I agree

 

[Voadam]

now this is an interesting take (one that might need a totally different conversation) but other then orko and the parents (maybe sorceress) who wasn't at least able to hold there own in melee?

It has been a couple decades, but most 80s action kids cartoons had the villains be visually threatening but never really hit anybody and usually the heroes overpower them. The closest a villain comes to visually hitting a hero is usually locking blades with the hero.

So Beast Man, Mer-Man, Trap Jaw, etc. had the He-Man build but never really hit a hero with a melee attack. If strength is a modifier to melee attacks and they are constantly attacking but missing this can be consistent with their stats being actually weak despite looking strong.

The abstract nature of D&D combat and hp could mean a translation that they are constantly hitting for damage, it just never shows up as a flesh wound or apparent hit, but it could also be constantly missing.

It has been years though so I might be off on their apparent accuracy in attacks.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Actually, I'm a bit puzzled by this whole statement. It is quite apparent to me, given 5e's structure at least, that a PC going through a whole campaign without ROLLING a stealth check, while doing things that have the color of 'stealthiness' is technically perfectly feasible. They player will simply have to accept the limitations of each situation. The Crystal Skull is held in the Library, which has a squeeky wooden floor. You can either NOT GO THERE or you can make a Stealth check! Guess what you won't steal? I mean, OK, you could instead cast Silence, or Fly, and avoid the problem, and that is just GOOD TACTICS, right?

Anyway, this is really something of a 'Spherical Cow' (theorycrafting) because the chances of an ENTIRE CAMPAIGN going by in which the GM is never able to highlight the PC's fundamental lack of talent at sneaking, while presenting scenarios filled with both reasons and opportunities to do so, is nil. Eventually the player will make choices and will need to be guided by a lack of a Stealth bonus, and this is exactly as it should be!

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.

This makes sense, I think its just a fact of gaming that player skill exists. Players should, ideally, create characters and put them in situations (here I point out the value of player-directed play) where the things that the player wants to do and does well can be applied in a way that makes a good coherent narrative in concordance with the mechanics of the game. This is an ideal though, and for various reasons won't be achieved in the real world (often players create a character and don't really know exactly what they will feel like doing later, for example).

I'm not 100% sure about the last sentence though. I mean, 5e DOES use the sort of criteria you all are discussing, checks are meant to model the statistical probability of character success given the situation at hand. In something like BW or DW that is definitely not the case, or at least not entirely the case. In DW (PbtA generally I assume) the check is more about how the STORY PROCEEDS vs if the character can succeed (there are no 'DCs' in PbtA). DW does have ability bonus, but it only applies in a minority of moves, and otherwise the bonuses you can get are 'hold' or 'forward' which are related to fictional position and acquired by making moves related to the current situation.

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 personally am not super fond of the idea of adding bonuses to checks based on these sorts of specific declarations. I don't think it can ever be discounted, because of the factors touched on above (good tactics has to get some sort of reward, if a player says "My PC takes cover" the game pretty much requires the character gets a benefit). OTOH I'm not fond of the acting out a speech sort of thing.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Personally I would not enjoy a game where there were never any ability skill checks less than one that uses them. If someone at the table knows military tactics (or is just good at making up convincing B.S.) it would only have minimal effect.

I want my PC build to matter. It's why I try to build balanced characters that have a breadth of skills that can be useful. If you use player knowledge, where does it end? Do the PCs suddenly know how to make gunpowder because the player is a chemist?

Player skill and tactical acumen will frequently have an impact on the game. Whether it's using spells the most efficiently or simple tactics like focusing fire when appropriate. But describing a tank trap as defense? Not in and of itself going to matter if I have a say.

But that's just my two coppers and preference.

But you understand that this is not a clear line? I mean, in 4e at least, it is a great benefit to focus fire. There's no ability check or skill check that can be applied to decide if the party does this or not. It is PURE player skill/knowledge and understanding of tactics. I mean, yes, a group could say "well, all our characters are dumb and foolish, so we will use bad tactics" but you certainly cannot enforce such a thing, nor even really ask for it. Nor does it really feel terribly appropriate. I like character skill and attributes mattering, but there will never be a clear line.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Your 3 and 2 here are not what I anticipated.

I'm glad I could surprise!

I personally think the distinction is important. The move from 2 to 3 shows that the player actually has something in mind.

Yes, but we don't expect players to be experts like their PCs. I do not penalize them for that nor do I reward them for "extra" language.

The same is true, in my view, if the player can actually say what their PC is saying.

Again, this is a matter of preference for the player. Roleplaying, as the 5e rules indicate, can be done in 1st person, in 3rd person, or a combination of both. Not all players are comfortable with 1st person but that doesn't make them less effective at the game of 5e D&D. Nor should they be somehow penalized or excluded because of that preference. My job, as DM, is to spread the spotlight around. I want every player involved as much as they want to be. I suppose this "say what their PC is saying" preference could also be a preference for the table, though, with a requirement that everyone speak in 1st person as their character - and, hey, that's fine if the whole group is on board from the start.

This difference can apply in 5e easily enough. If the player gives a rousing speech, or actually describes how tank traps work, this can grant advantage on a check. That wouldn't necessarily be relevant at your table, where - as I understand it - it is considered desirable to avoid rolling the dice. But it would be relevant at @Oofta's or @clearstream's table.

Interesting. So you are saying that @Oofta and @clearstream favor... Magic Words?!?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

How is this even possible?

 

[HammerMan]

It has been a couple decades, but most 80s action kids cartoons had the villains be visually threatening but never really hit anybody and usually the heroes overpower them. The closest a villain comes to visually hitting a hero is usually locking blades with the hero.

So Beast Man, Mer-Man, Trap Jaw, etc. had the He-Man build but never really hit a hero with a melee attack. If strength is a modifier to melee attacks and they are constantly attacking but missing this can be consistent with their stats being actually weak despite looking strong.

The abstract nature of D&D combat and hp could mean a translation that they are constantly hitting for damage, it just never shows up as a flesh wound or apparent hit, but it could also be constantly missing.

It has been years though so I might be off on their apparent accuracy in attacks.

opps miss understood... yeah I mean none of them hit anyone they all had A team Aim...