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

[Oofta]

Awesome. In other words:

• The DM can have their NPCs treat the PCs differently, based on Int score
• The DM can introduce challenges that may rely on Int scores

There’s nothing in there that suggests how the player is supposed to roleplay, so I’m good with it.

There are many people who believe they are very smart while in fact they are anything but. Most of the time if someone leads with "I'm very intelligent" it's an indicator that they are not. Unless of course I say it. Then it's just obvious.

 

[Hriston]

Some people just like to go along for the ride now and then, as long as the fiction is entertaining it's all that matters. If a group enjoys it, I'm not going to say they're doing it wrong.

For that matter I throw in little vignettes that bridge together the story between sessions now and then. Major decisions are never made but if the PCs are directly involved I do decide how they react and what they say. My players have told me that they enjoy it.

There's no question that being a member of an audience listening to someone tell you a story can be enjoyable, but I wouldn't call it an instance of actually playing the game.

 

[Hriston]

The bit you've bolded is the key here.

It could - and arguably should - be worded differently such as to get the word "characters" in there somewhere, but consider the ramifications of these two alternate wordings:

"The players describe what they want their characters to do."
"The players-as-characters describe what they want to do."

The first promotes pawn-stance, the second promotes immersion. The wording they actually used promotes neither, and thus leaves it open-ended. For a game trying to be the biggest tent it can, this is an impressively good little piece of writing in terms of achieving that goal.

It's as designed, no doubt. Two variations that I think could find support from different posters in this thread are:

1. The players describe what their characters want to do, and​

2. The players describe what their characters do.​

My preference is for the second, and I actually find it kind of annoying when players state their character's actions only as proposed additions to the fiction because it kind of leaves it up to me as the DM to play their character and I can't be sure what it is they're actually doing. Tell me what your character does, and I'll tell you what happens as a result.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, if you want to argue that somebody who is 5'9" is one inch taller than somebody who is 5'8" I'm right there with you.

But what is the difference, according to the rules or even 'guidance', between somebody who has 8 Int and 10 Int?

One has low ability to reason, etc. and the other does not.

Yes, the 10 Int person is better at recall, deduction, etc. But how much better and, more importantly, how is that supposed to be reflected in gameplay and roleplaying, again according to the rules which you insist dictate something about this?


I've argued the 8 Int is 5% worse than the 10 Int, because that's what the mechanic says. If you have a different number I'd love to hear your reasoning, but for now I'll go with the 5%.

Let's go with 5%......sort of. The exact percentage isn't important. You're not going to get some formulaic, "You do X number of Y amount of dumb things per hour." Instead, you can just roleplay it every once in a while in a way you decide for your PC.

The issue seems to be that the player with the low Int still tries to use their own intelligence when proposing plans, solving puzzles, piecing together clues, etc. So how do we roleplay being 5% dumber?

Forget the 5%. It's not important. Just go with a little bit dumber every once in a while and you'll be good.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, just adjust the numbers from 5% to 40% and the same arguments are applicable.

Or not applicable. The exact percentages aren't important at all.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's as designed, no doubt. Two variations that I think could find support from different posters in this thread are:

1. The players describe what their characters want to do, and​

2. The players describe what their characters do.​

My preference is for the second, and I actually find it kind of annoying when players state their character's actions only as proposed additions to the fiction because it kind of leaves it up to me as the DM to play their character and I can't be sure what it is they're actually doing. Tell me what your character does, and I'll tell you what happens as a result.

I prefer them to tell me both. What do you want to accomplish, and what does your character do to try and accomplish it? That makes it easiest for me to evaluate if your action can succeed or fail, has stakes, and what ability and DC are appropriate if it can and does.

 

[Oofta]

There's no question that being a member of an audience listening to someone tell you a story can be enjoyable, but I wouldn't call it an instance of actually playing the game.

I would. Or more to the point: I don't care. These distinctions always feel quite arbitrary and meaningless to me, a lot of people blur the lines one way or the other between who is in control of the PC or the setting narrative. Are people enjoying time with friends in a collaborative setting? I see little reason to say whether or not they are "actually playing the game".

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sherlock, in their own mind

Yes!!!!

And maybe part of the character arc is coming to grips with the realization that nobody recognizes their genius.

 

[clearstream]

It's as designed, no doubt. Two variations that I think could find support from different posters in this thread are:

1. The players describe what their characters want to do, and​

2. The players describe what their characters do.​

My preference is for the second, and I actually find it kind of annoying when players state their character's actions only as proposed additions to the fiction because it kind of leaves it up to me as the DM to play their character and I can't be sure what it is they're actually doing. Tell me what your character does, and I'll tell you what happens as a result.

The results can include that they can’t do as they said. I believe players perforce follow 1. Although they can generally frame that as 2.

 

[Hriston]

I prefer them to tell me both. What do you want to accomplish, and what does your character do to try and accomplish it? That makes it easiest for me to evaluate if your action can succeed or fail, has stakes, and what ability and DC are appropriate if it can and does.

Yes, a clear statement of intent is also well appreciated! That wasn't what I had in mind with "what their characters want to do," however. I was focusing more on the task portion of the action declaration, but the entire declaration including the goal should be read as part of both statements, so something like:

1. The players describe what their characters want to do and what they hope to accomplish thereby, or​

2. The players describe what their characters do and what they hope to accomplish thereby.​