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

[pemerton]

Hmmmm, I'm not sure I really see much reason for this preference.

In my experience, the "I try" locution often bleeds into a "Can I?" phrasing. Which I find irritating. I prefer the action declaration to be "I do", and then if the player's description needs to be wound back, the GM does that as part of the resolution process.

That is, in practice, play in ANY RPG, certainly in most, even story games, revolves around something similar. There are things which PCs will learn in some fashion when they interact. I guess you could completely describe every possible defined element of every scene explicitly for the players beforehand, but my guess is that never really happens. Maybe its informal, maybe its even 'not really how its supposed to be done', but it kind of happens. That is the player says "My character seems to perceive a door here, I test that perception." Now, maybe in the above "all distinctions are explicit" there CANNOT be a point where the PLAYER 'discovers' that the door is locked, they would already know. So, maybe BW is like that, I'm not sure, I only played one variant a couple times long ago.

I'm not 100% sure I follow you here.

The canonical action declaration in Burning Wheel is I do . . . so that I can . . . or I will . . . so that I can . . . . This establishes a task, and an intent. But that task doesn't necessarily become part of the shared fiction. If the GM says "yes" then it does. If the GM says roll the dice! and the player succeeds, then it does. If the GM says roll the dice! and the player fails, then it is up to the GM to narrate what occurs, including how much of the task becomes part of the fiction. Probably some of it does - eg at least some of the PC's basic bodily movements, maybe some preliminary steps - and maybe even all of it does - eg the PC does open the locked door, but for whatever narrated reason that doesn't achieve the declared intent.

So at the moment of action declaration, the task is a purely hypothetical or posited or desired-but-not-guaranteed component of the shared fiction.

I approach 4e and Prince Valiant in much the same fashion.

But that doesn't change my preference about the verbal form of action declaration: I find the "I try" or "I attempt" locution insipid.

The same is true on the GM side: suppose in 4e I'm narrating the movement of some NPCs. The players probably have the capacity to interrupt that movement in some fashion. But I won't describe my NPCs' movement in terms of attempt. I say where they are going, and if the players interrupt in some fashion then I add in the corrected description.

Probably what's going on, in grammatical terms, is an implicit future tense: I'm opening the door or The NPCs are moving over here used to signal what is about to unfold, everything else being equal. A failed check, or interruption by a ranger using some immediate action, results in things not being equal and hence the description of what was to happen having to be revised.

 

[pemerton]

Round 1: The fighter enters melee with the lich and attacks it. Then the lich attacks the fighter and hits them. The player has to roll a saving throw. I think that, at this point, the player is playing the game although not declaring any action for their PC. Let's suppose the saving throw is a failure.

Round 2: stuff happens; when the fighter's turn comes around, the player of the fighter can't declare any actions because the fighter is paralysed. The fighter's player then has to roll a saving throw. Again, this fails. The player then decides to use the Indomitable ability. Again, I think that this rolling and decision-making is the player playing the game, even though they are not declaring any actions for their and are not roleplaying their PC in any obvious fashion.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In my experience, the "I try" locution often bleeds into a "Can I?" phrasing. Which I find irritating. I prefer the action declaration to be "I do", and then if the player's description needs to be wound back, the GM does that as part of the resolution process.


I'm not 100% sure I follow you here.

The canonical action declaration in Burning Wheel is I do . . . so that I can . . . or I will . . . so that I can . . . . This establishes a task, and an intent. But that task doesn't necessarily become part of the shared fiction. If the GM says "yes" then it does. If the GM says roll the dice! and the player succeeds, then it does. If the GM says roll the dice! and the player fails, then it is up to the GM to narrate what occurs, including how much of the task becomes part of the fiction. Probably some of it does - eg at least some of the PC's basic bodily movements, maybe some preliminary steps - and maybe even all of it does - eg the PC does open the locked door, but for whatever narrated reason that doesn't achieve the declared intent.

So at the moment of action declaration, the task is a purely hypothetical or posited or desired-but-not-guaranteed component of the shared fiction.

I approach 4e and Prince Valiant in much the same fashion.

But that doesn't change my preference about the verbal form of action declaration: I find the "I try" or "I attempt" locution insipid.

The same is true on the GM side: suppose in 4e I'm narrating the movement of some NPCs. The players probably have the capacity to interrupt that movement in some fashion. But I won't describe my NPCs' movement in terms of attempt. I say where they are going, and if the players interrupt in some fashion then I add in the corrected description.

Probably what's going on, in grammatical terms, is an implicit future tense: I'm opening the door or The NPCs are moving over here used to signal what is about to unfold, everything else being equal. A failed check, or interruption by a ranger using some immediate action, results in things not being equal and hence the description of what was to happen having to be revised.

Ah, I see. Fair enough. I'm non-picky enough that I just read all the various formulations as conditional future tense. I think what you're saying about BW is pretty much what I'm saying, which is that there isn't any possibility of a GM imposed hidden backstory kind of 'No' possible. I guess its possible that the player doesn't know the correct formulation of action? IE there's a door, I want to open it, there could be a variety of ways, so I suppose 'open the door' could precipitate "you will have to get past the lock first" which would precipitate "I break the door down", etc. This would be pretty much the DW flow, with its tri-partite branching structure of "you failed, and something bad happens", "you succeeded, but the result is complicated", or "yup, you are through to the other side and things are great."

I would note however that it isn't actually clear how you would adjudicate "break down a door" in DW! I mean, its moves are more 'abstract' in many cases. So the question becomes "why are you breaking down the door?" is it to avoid some kind of danger, then DD applies. If its just a desire to get to the other side because you want to, then basically you succeed! The GM could, maybe should, 'build a dungeon filled with doors' by creating a move for that environment. Something like "when the PCs smash down a door, one of the Orcs of Gruumsh comes to investigate."

 

[pemerton]

I suppose 'open the door' could precipitate "you will have to get past the lock first" which would precipitate "I break the door down", etc. This would be pretty much the DW flow, with its tri-partite branching structure of "you failed, and something bad happens", "you succeeded, but the result is complicated", or "yup, you are through to the other side and things are great."

I would note however that it isn't actually clear how you would adjudicate "break down a door" in DW! I mean, its moves are more 'abstract' in many cases. So the question becomes "why are you breaking down the door?" is it to avoid some kind of danger, then DD applies. If its just a desire to get to the other side because you want to, then basically you succeed!

My assumption, for DW, is that (in the absence of any danger being defied) I open the door or I break down the door invites a soft move from the GM - anything from OK, on the other side is an ogre and a chest to OK, that was pretty loud! to OK, it's a tough door and doesn't break, you can try again but it'll probably hurt your shoulder.

In BW it's "say 'yes' or roll the dice", so either the door opens or a Power check gets rolled against the appropriate obstacle. If the check fails, the GM can narrate an appropriate consequence that plays on intent and task in a way that makes sense for the fictional context and drives things onward.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My assumption, for DW, is that (in the absence of any danger being defied) I open the door or I break down the door invites a soft move from the GM - anything from OK, on the other side is an ogre and a chest to OK, that was pretty loud! to OK, it's a tough door and doesn't break, you can try again but it'll probably hurt your shoulder.

In BW it's "say 'yes' or roll the dice", so either the door opens or a Power check gets rolled against the appropriate obstacle. If the check fails, the GM can narrate an appropriate consequence that plays on intent and task in a way that makes sense for the fictional context and drives things onward.

Yeah, I mean, it IS possible for DW GM to say "fictionally that isn't possible", the canonical example being a fighter trying to hack a virtually invulnerable dragon with his sword. 4e clearly doesn't allow for that in COMBAT, but it seems like it is at least possible in other situations, as the canonical example is the unintimidatable duke (though that example has long been panned).

 

[Lanefan]

But that doesn't change my preference about the verbal form of action declaration: I find the "I try" or "I attempt" locution insipid.

I see it as situationally dependent. Something simple doesn't need an "I try", but something that's clearly doubtful in the fiction does I think.

I climb the wall. That needs a stated or implied "I try" unless the wall's already been narrated as trivially easy to climb.
I jump off the wall. No "I try " needed here! (though attempts to stop the character from jumping very much would need an "I try" and almost certainly some dice-rolling as well)

Probably what's going on, in grammatical terms, is an implicit future tense: I'm opening the door or The NPCs are moving over here used to signal what is about to unfold, everything else being equal. A failed check, or interruption by a ranger using some immediate action, results in things not being equal and hence the description of what was to happen having to be revised.

While I get what you're saying, this can verge a bit close to retconning for my liking and could potentially lead to arguments if someone takes the first description as canon and acts on it, only to have that description changed a moment later.

I'd rather keep things in the present tense as far as possible, which means in all cases that in order to succeed at something a character first has to try and do it; though often the "I try to" is implied rather than said out loud.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I see it as situationally dependent. Something simple doesn't need an "I try", but something that's clearly doubtful in the fiction does I think.

I climb the wall. That needs a stated or implied "I try" unless the wall's already been narrated as trivially easy to climb.
I jump off the wall. No "I try " needed here! (though attempts to stop the character from jumping very much would need an "I try" and almost certainly some dice-rolling as well)

While I get what you're saying, this can verge a bit close to retconning for my liking and could potentially lead to arguments if someone takes the first description as canon and acts on it, only to have that description changed a moment later.

I'd rather keep things in the present tense as far as possible, which means in all cases that in order to succeed at something a character first has to try and do it; though often the "I try to" is implied rather than said out loud.

I don't think we need to avoid the sort of retcon that is more like "wait, before you try that..."

 

[Hriston]

I think there is room for nuance here.

For instance, as a result of something that happens in play Kim is able to tell Tran some of Tran's character's desires/motivations. (Eg by imposing a fear effect or condition.) Tran still gets to declare their PC's actions, but doesn't get to decide everything that their PC feels.

Even in the ordinary case, when the GM is telling the players what their PCs see and hear, the players are, consequently, not deciding everything that their PCs think (eg the GM is the one who decides that the PC thinks I can see a door about twenty feet in front of me).

Another possibility I know arises in 4e D&D, and in principle could arise in 5e D&D.

Suppose a fear effect causes a character to move (ie recoil in horror/terror; in 4e I'm thinking of the Deathlock Wight) or to be paralysed with fear (in 4e this is represented via the stunned condition). The player may have a resource that permits them to respond, either when the effect is first imposed, or at some subsequent point (eg if making a saving throw vs stun): in 4e this would probably be an immediate interrupt or a "no action" ability, while in 5e it would probably be a reaction. The player deciding whether or not to use this ability is, in my mind, clearly playing the game even though they are not, at the point of making that decision, deciding what it is that their PC thinks or feels.

I agree that in many cases a player's authority to roleplay their character may be abridged with respect to certain aspects of their character (e.g. what they think, what they do) and not render the PC completely unplayable, or if it does, not for so long a time as to have a negative impact on play for that player.

I disagree though that this is what's happening in the normal play loop when the DM describes the environment. Thoughts are coming from the DM, yes, but the DM doesn't have the final word on what the PCs think in this case. The DM is telling the players some fiction about the game-world, e.g. that there is a door twenty feet in front of their PCs, and the players then imagine their PCs, including whatever thoughts they are having, in the situation the DM has described. The fiction thus imparted to the players consists of things known to the PCs, but I think this base level of knowledge (the game-board, if you will) is in a different category from the independent thoughts of the PCs that the players decide upon in step 2 of the basic pattern in reaction to the DM’s description. I mean, it’s a conversation game, so naturally the participants are going to be putting thoughts into one another’s heads.

I think clearstream's point turns on more than just inadequate GM narration.

Let's start with the low-hanging fruit: suppose that, in the fiction, there is a trompe-l'oiel effect in place - from a painting, or in D&D more likely from illusion magic - and it is established (using some or other process - eg the player has looked at a GM's handed out illustration; or has failed to "disbelieve" an illusion; or has not used a Detect Magic effect even though they are in hot pursuit of an illusionist) that a PC is fooled by it. The player declares I walk down the corridor - but the GM's response has to be something along the lines of No you don't - there is no corridor!

Another version might be a stone carving or ceramic structure painted and polished to look like wood. The player declares I set it alight with my torch and then discovers, again via GM narration, that it is not flammable.

One-way or locked doors are another D&D staple for this: the GM responds to I open the door with You can't open it.

The general point is that, in typical D&D play, players learn the GM's conception of the setting primarily by declaring actions and receiving GM narration in response, and some of that narration is explaining why declared actions fail.

And the more general reason that (in my view) sits behind @clearstream's point is one I posted about a couple of years ago: Players choose what their PCs do . . .

Every action is amenable to more than one description: in the example I gave in that thread, taken from the philosopher of action Donald Davidson, "I flip the switch, turn on the light, and illuminate the room. Unbeknownst to me I also alert a prowler to the fact that I am home. Here I need not have done four things, but only one, of which four descriptions have been given."

If a player proffers a description that contradicts some hitherto-unrevealed aspect of the fiction, which the GM then draws on to establish what happens, the GM is going to veto the player's proffered description and put forward a different one that avoids the contradiction: so instead of I open the door the GM puts forward the "closest" (not a technical term) true description in the neighbourhood: You grab the door handle and push and pull, but it won't open!

Or in @Lanefan's example, You start to scan and feel the wall closely, looking for holds and a path up, but it looks like it probably can't be climbed or maybe even - if this is consequent on a failed climbing check, for those versions of the game that use them (the Basic PDF, p 64, flags that "At the DM’s option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check) - You scan and feel the wall closely, but you can't find any holds sufficient to climb it - it's too steep and slippery.

For what it's worth, I prefer an approach where the players declare their actions without the "try" or "attempt" - which I find a bit irritating or insipid - and then the GM corrects with the true description where the player's proffered description can't be true.

One that I’ve encountered quite a bit in a PbP context is “[My PC] would...” which sounds like a contingency, and I always want to ask, “If what?” or "Under what circumstances?" I find it annoying because it doesn’t feel like a fully committed declaration, and I have to sort of assume that the character really has done the thing their player said they would do in order to say what happens next.

I'm not as averse to the words "try" or "attempt" though, as long as what the PCs are doing is actually trying or attempting something rather than simply doing it, as in "I try the door to see if it will open easily."

I do my best to avoid the types of situations you've described here, especially the examples you've given of telling the players (or revising) what their PCs really do. If some information is hidden, I telegraph its presence, and I try to follow "say yes or roll the dice" and adjudicate without reference to secret backstory.

Intent and task makes me think straight away of Burning Wheel, which - to the best of my knowledge - is the RPG that coined the phrase to describe it's approach to action declaration and resolution.

In BW the declared task is purely hypothetical or aspirational, in that we don't know whether or not it was achieved until the outcome is determined. If the declared action succeeds, then both intent and task are achieved. If the declared action fails, then the GM narrates the failure, with primary attention paid to the intent but with the option to also narrate some degree of failure of the task.

But a crucial element of BW, that accompanies intent and task, is say 'yes' or roll the dice: ie if there is nothing narratively at stake the GM says yes, and otherwise the dice are rolled and from that either it follows that both intent and task succeeded (if the player succeeds on the check) or that intent was not achieved, and perhaps not the task either (if the player fails the check).

I think in 5e it is more complicated because it is possible for the task to succeed yet the intent fail, due to considerations recorded in the GM's notes; and it is possible for the GM to say "yes" or to say "no" based on adjudication of the fiction rather than having regard to narrative stakes or the outcome of a check. So we can't treat the player's declaration as purely hypothetical pending a roll of the dice - because not all action declarations trigger a dice roll even if there are genuine narrative stakes - but nor can we always treat the player's description of their action as in-principle feasible (because it may be contradicted by as-yet unrevealed stuff in the GM's notes).

Hence why I prefer the approach I described earlier in this post - the player declares their action without the language of try/attempt, but the GM corrects the description if that is what is necessary to achieve a true description of the action relative to the fiction including the as-yet unrevealed fiction.

I think there's a difference between hypothetical or aspirational action declarations and those that as @clearstream stated the PCs "can't do". Why do the players aspire (for their PCs) to doing something they can't? I think this is nearly always because they lack a complete understanding of the fictional positioning. Since my preference is to say "yes" or roll the dice, there's a possibility that the PCs can succeed at any action declaration that's at least valid.

 

[Hriston]

I don't expect people to state their actions using any special phrasing. If they say "I climb the wall" and an athletics check is required I'll just ask for an athletics check. I don't see why it matters, I'm quite capable of parsing the meaning. If it's unclimbable I'll just let them know it's not possible.

Well, good for you! That sounds just peachy!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think there's a difference between hypothetical or aspirational action declarations and those that as @clearstream stated the PCs "can't do". Why do the players aspire (for their PCs) to doing something they can't? I think this is nearly always because they lack a complete understanding of the fictional positioning. Since my preference is to say "yes" or roll the dice, there's a possibility that the PCs can succeed at any action declaration that's at least valid.

But the key point is that in a game like BW, or DW for that matter, UNREVEALED BACKSTORY CANNOT EXIST. I mean, I'm not 100% sure of BW, maybe there are some ways it could arise? Canonically in DW the only unrevealed backstory is fronts, and associated dangers and dooms (there could also be attributes of steadings, like if one steading has an oath with another might not be known to the PCs). Anything else would be revealed on the spot via some form of move. So the category of "the state of the fiction makes this impossible" is limited to the OVERT state of the fiction. A DW GM does have some leeway there, like saying "Well, you see that the dragon's hide is made of thick iron-hard scales, but his mouth is gaping towards you, and there aren't any scales there..." So it IS up to the players to supply fictionally viable descriptions of their PCs actions, but the GM is likely to be the prime arbiter of their viability. It doesn't really come up a lot in practice IME. What really comes up is, you failed the move roll and things turned out bad, but COULD you have succeeded is really potentially an open question, from a fictional perspective. Beyond that there's just the stuff everyone agrees is impossible, so the player won't try it.